Eagles & YouTube etc

[StephUK]

Don't know whether I should have posted this in another thread, if so please move it.

With all the recent discussion in the thread for the Atlantic City shows reviews, I got to thinking about this topic.

Of course, the Eagles(and all performers) have the right not to allow videoing at their shows, but I’ve been thinking about just how much of a problem videoing at Eagles shows and posting the videos on YouTube really is.

Since the start of the LROOE tour in March 2008 the Eagles have performed about 200 shows. Have you ever seen videos of a whole show on YouTube? I haven’t .

The audience for each show is between about 8,000 – 40,000 people.

On average videos of 3-4 songs from any show will be posted on YouTube. 1 or 2 people will post videos from a show. Of the 200 shows, I have probably seen videos posted from around 30 shows.

Of the videos I've seen, about 80% are of poor quality, being taken from a long way away from the stage, badly affected by the stage lights or very wobbly. The rest range from being watchable to fairly good, but not of professional quality. These videos will never be an alternative to seeing a live show – there’s just no comparison. I believe most people value these videos as personal reminders of the show they attended.

Who watches these videos on YouTube? I would guess it’s mostly die-hard fans like us here on the Border, who like to see shows they’ve been to, and who will go to future shows anyway, so I don’t think it can be argued that people will watch these poor quality videos instead of going to a show.

I understand that there is a principle here about copyright. I’m neither defending nor criticising taking videos at shows; however, it seems that the issue has been blown out of all proportion.

Note: These figures are not facts, they are just my personal experience. I’m willing to be proven wrong!!

It is probably true to say that there are more audio recordings than videos being posted on the net and offered for sale. While it’s possible that these could have an effect on CD sales they often have a lot of audience noise, so they’d don’t really replace the experience of listening to the songs as the artist recorded them. They may even encourage people to buy a genuine CD.
Again, this is just my view on the issue.

[Tiffanny Twisted]

good one steph.

I just posted in another thread bout wanting to look your best on a video and thats what I think is the bottom line for them. Think about what they put in to making live from Melbourne. The quality.'They probably dont want some idiot in the audience thinking he is an amature Steven SPeiberg filming them with poor quality from equipment in the nose bleed section and posting it all over the world. He everybody wants to look their best. ANd if they cant control it then there is no controbution to the retirment fund.

Me, I would rather have the memory of the show in my mind and heart, then watch some poor quality video....If I want quality , I would watch a dvd. I want that one or two quality picture I can get for my own scrapbook and enjoyment. I dont sell them I only put them up on my desk to look at and get me through a hard day at work.It takes me to my happy place.

Thanks for starting this post..Great idea.

:thumbsup:tt

[Freypower]

There was virtually no video of Glenn's tour on YouTube. I tend to agree that the issue has been blown way out of proportion.

The Eagles have not released a DVD since 2005; as opposed to bands like Rush who seem to put one out every two years. If the Eagles want to satisfy their fans they should release more official concert DVDs (of course this would mean changing the setlist occasionally). If Glenn released a DVD of his After Hours show I would be the happiest person alive.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

If Glenn released a DVD of his After Hours show I would be the happiest person alive.

You might have some competition for that!

[StephUK]

TT - I thought it might get other Borderers thinking, and I'm always open to listening to others views on these controversial topics. Lively discussion is good, so long as it stays friendly!

[StephUK]

There was virtually no video of Glenn's tour on YouTube. I tend to agree that the issue has been blown way out of proportion.

The Eagles have not released a DVD since 2005; as opposed to bands like Rush who seem to put one out every two years. If the Eagles want to satisfy their fans they should release more official concert DVDs (of course this would mean changing the setlist occasionally). If Glenn released a DVD of his After Hours show I would be the happiest person alive.


Good point Freypower. The Eagles should put out more official videos.

[Tiffanny Twisted]

TT - I thought it might get other Borderers thinking, and I'm always open to listening to others views on these controversial topics. Lively discussion is good, so long as it stays friendly!
Yep friendly is the key. lol

Yes, I agree , more eagles videos released please..r u guys listening to us fans???????

I think we'd all fight for first place in line to buy the dvd "after hours" one of Glenns. Remember, I the concert was my birthday present and I thought he did the show just for me LOL . Didnt you guys at the sands show see the big red bow with the tag that said TT"s bday gift?????:hilarious: around his neck???

Ok so we are in agreement...more quality eagles as a group and as solo artists dvds for us die hard border fans.Right?????:thumbsup:

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Steph, I just read your entire post above. It's hard to say how many videos are posted. The videos that were posted the other day, I paid attention since someone said I could be seen from the back, most of the videos were yanked in one day. Since we were having this discussion, I checked the list from one poster, he posted at least seven videos and the only ones still up are HC and Joe's songs.

[Topkat]

I don't think they don't want videos up because of the way they LOOK. I really don't think it has a darn thing to do with that.... It has everything to do with the COPYRIGHT issue. I think they are all over that & that is the reason they don't want anyone getting a FREE recording of them performing.
Also, many people download the video to MP3 & put it on their Ipod, therefore getting a song for free.....OMG!!!! Someone getting a free song....Sheeh

YES, they should put out more dvd's of their concerts, so that we can see some of the shows we may have missed. Sometimes it's nice to have the moment on video to relive a memory, just like a photo. These people are not selling anything or making a profit from these videos. Why they care so much is just a mystery to me.

I just do NOT get it. Every other band or performer does not care a hoot that they have stuff on YouTube...Many encourage it & they do get more popular from it!! I just don't think anything is going to change as far as their policy on this stuff. It has been this way for years & it's not changed one bit....It is what it is.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Granted, I've not been to many concerts in the last few years, but the Eagles are the only ones I've been to lately that allow photographs. None have allowed video to be taken.

Other artists may have given in or given up. Many here have denied it, but I have nephews and a younger brother, all teens, and they honestly can't figure out why I buy CDs or mp3s. "You can hear it on YouTube for free." It's more than concert footage that's out there, there's pictures with lyrics, etc. They honestly think the only mp3s they need to buy is what they want on their mp3 players, and even then, there's audio rippers. I have friends, all of whom make significantly more money than I do, and they own music collections with the number of songs over ten thousand, over half of it copied or ripped from YouTube or Spotify. At least on Spotify, a few pennies go to the artist every time someone listens to the song.

In my opinion, our guys have their eyes on the bigger picture. They have their money, but it's their music and it doesn't need to be given away. Younger musicians who are just getting started, they'll never make the money that artists used to make. So why do it if you need to keep a day job to eat? So what music is there to listen to ten years from now?

They realize that the world is changing and adjustments need to be made. They just want them to be fair and for the music industry to have a future.

[sodascouts]

You know, I wonder - does anyone really rip live audio from these concert videos onto their iPods? They're such poor quality! Many of them aren't even of the complete song.

Steph makes a good point that a very small percentage of video from concerts makes its way to YouTube. That's true not just for the Eagles, but for any concert I've gone to. I saw lots of people filming Lindsey Buckingham on their digital cameras in New Orleans, for instance, but when I go to YouTube, there's only one poor quality 90-second clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRNePsCrbzw)! That's it! And it's not because Lindsey's taken them down; he doesn't care about them. It's just most folks don't take the time and trouble to upload their videos. They're taking them for themselves, as "souvenirs."

The Eagles are getting themselves all worked up over something that's not even that big of a problem. Certainly it has not caused a catastrophic loss of ticket sales, as all who have gone to their shows can attest! They're still able to charge a massive amount of money and sell out crowds. This has no ill affect on them. I really don't see why they make such a big deal about it.

I really don't really believe there's anyone out there going, "Well, I was planning on spending $200 to see the Eagles live, but now that I can see poor quality clips of a few songs on YouTube, I'll save my money!"

If the Eagles believe that this is a common mentality and that YouTube videos of live shows are causing them to lose tons of money in ticket sales, they're out of touch with the attitude of the typical fan. The typical fan does not go to a show just to hear/see music live. The typical fan goes for the larger experience. Otherwise, they'd just stay at home and watch Farewell 1.

I truly don't believe those videos have adversely affected ticket sales AT ALL.

If anyone can find proof that these videos have indeed negatively impacted ticket sales, please, feel free to link to it.

I do think the vanity angle is an issue. I can sympathize with that - I wouldn't like to have videos of me online where I felt I looked bad. However, the vast majority of these videos are fawned over by fans, many of whom believe the guys look great in them. I think they might be too hard on themselves there. Just because they look older doesn't mean they don't look good.

Of course, as I've said elsewhere, despite the fact that I feel they're making a mountain out of a molehill, I do respect their wishes and refrain from filming the band. I don't want to distract or upset them, so I also discourage others from taking videos during their shows.

I think if they sweetly and in good humor request that people not film, they will get fewer people to video without garnering any ill will. Realistically, though, they will never get universal cooperation no matter what they say, and I just wish they would accept that and not let it affect their performance.

[WalshFan88]

I agree Soda.

I posted my thoughts on YouTube along with some other things I didn't like in the AC thread but I'll say it again - I think it's over the top with their trying to control it.

[TimothyBFan]

You know, I wonder - does anyone really rip live audio from these concert videos onto their iPods? They're such poor quality! Many of them aren't even of the complete song.


:wave: I do!! I do!!! :hilarious: Seriously, I do and not just Eagles stuff but a lot of them from other bands, ripped from YouTube. I am selective on the quality tho before putting them on there.

I've made myself perfectly clear how I feel about their attitude towards filming, picture taking, etc... To be honest, I seriously think that is the reason a group like the Eagles have only a couple of really good fansites---the fear that that might be "illegal" also. KWIM? Soda--I'm sure you can answer this--- aren't there probably all kinds of guidelines on doing a fansite of this caliber.... dos and don'ts?

It still amazes me just how different bands can be regarding their attitude about YouTube and the internet. I just think that bands that have the we don't care attitude or ham it up to the fans that have a camera pointed at them, or play off the audience, knowing they are being filmed are definitely considered more "fan friendly" than bands that will say something in the middle of a song to make someone stop filming. JMO!

[sodascouts]

:wave: I do!! I do!!! :hilarious: Seriously, I do and not just Eagles stuff but a lot of them from other bands, ripped from YouTube. I am selective on the quality tho before putting them on there.

Ok. Would you otherwise have spent money on buying live tracks if you hadn't been able to rip these? Would you have bought a ticket to a live show if these hadn't been available? In other words, have the Eagles lost potential revenue as a result?


I've made myself perfectly clear how I feel about their attitude towards filming, picture taking, etc... To be honest, I seriously think that is the reason a group like the Eagles have only a couple of really good fansites---the fear that that might be "illegal" also. KWIM? Soda--I'm sure you can answer this--- aren't there probably all kinds of guidelines on doing a fansite of this caliber.... dos and don'ts?

There is no rule book per se. However, if the Eagles wanted to, they could unleash their high-priced lawyers on me and right or wrong, I would not be able to afford to fight them. Heck, if I knew Glenn loathed the site and wanted it wiped from existence, I would be so heartbroken that I wouldn't have much will to fight despite all the blood, sweat, tears, time, and money I have spent on this labor of love over the years. So far they have not chosen to take legal action against me. I think that's because when it comes down to it, these guys really do appreciate their fans, and have a sense of fairness and decency.

[Topkat]

Soda, I agree with pretty much all you said, except maybe the "vanity issue" which I honestly don't believe is an issue for them.

Yes, most of the concert video is crappy & not full songs & I don't think many people rip music from them for their Ipod, but people do Rip the music from the "Official Video" of a song, where you do get the good quality & the full song.
I still also believe this does not take away from their cd sales or concert attendance...I just think it's more the copyright issue.

VA, I have to disagree with you in the issue of young artists not making the money that the Eagles made....Some of these young kids are VERY RICH. Not all of them, but a lot are. It all depends on the management & this was the same issue that happened in the past. Some bands got ripped off, while others made tons of money. It's all in the way they are handled.
I don't think the YouTube stuff has much effect on how much money a band makes. The live experience is always something that a fan wants. New young acts don't seem to have any problem selling out stadiums these days. These are probably acts that we Eagles fans wouldn't see, but they have their own audience....What really amazes me is how some of them"lipsync" and totally get away with it. People paying for a live show that is mostly a lot of dancing, & pyrotechnics! The music business keeps changing....That's for sure!

[TimothyBFan]

Ok. Would you otherwise have spent money on buying live tracks if you hadn't been able to rip these? Would you have bought a ticket to a live show if these hadn't been available? In other words, have the Eagles lost potential revenue as a result?



I don't know how to answer this because I buy so much music and I also rip from YouTube (hanging head in shame) and I use to attend a lot more concerts than I do now but yes, I have spent and do spend TONS of money, probably a lot more than I should, on music related stuff. I just want it ALL!!!! Does that give me a free pass to do this illegally also? :headscratch:

[sodascouts]

Well, I love ya, Willie, but no. If something is commercially available, you should buy it. That's the right thing to do.

I know times are hard, but a single song off of iTunes or a subscription service is just the price of a bottle of soda. Now, when they don't make them available that way and want to force you to buy the whole album just for one song, I know it can be tempting to just rip the song, but I still don't think it's right.

I make an exception for out of print and/or live material, neither of which can be purchased. That's also what I put on the site. If those become commercially available, I take them down. If the Eagles put some of the live clips I currently have online in their DVD retrospective, I'll take those down as well.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

As a software person, I can relate to the copyright issue. At one time it was a real problem, people using software they didn't pay for. It really did mean the difference between people being employed or laid off.

Software people rule when it comes to anything to do with computers. We can control it all if we want to. After years of being ripped off, there are two types of software. Freeware, which doesn't always work and almost always offers to allow you to pay for a version that does. It also comes with plenty of advertisements that are annoying, not to mention toolbars and search engines that try to take over your computer.

The other type is things like MS Office. This is a high priced suite of products and can actually cost more than the computer. A high portion of the cost is the security built in to keep it from being illegally copied and hacked. So I, as an honest consumer, am paying more than a hundred dollars extra to keep me honest and prevent security leaks/hackers from getting into my private data.

At the moment, there isn't much the music industry can do to protect themselves. Perhaps they'll come up with something. All the ad revenue generated on YouTube (and the freeware used to rip the audio and video off of it) goes in someone else's pocket. They are making huge amounts of money off the backs of musicians that aren't getting any of the revenue. Which makes it all even worse IMO.

YouTube isn't a bad thing, and it wasn't originally designed for this sort of thing. Part of the project I work on is having a YouTube channel for soldiers to reference for a lot of different things to help them out. So I wouldn't want anyone (especially my boss) to think I want YouTube to go away.

[sodascouts]

The destruction of YouTube would actually HURT many musicians. Yeah, it wouldn't hurt the established ones like the Eagles who don't need the exposure (as Don sarcastically reminded us Saturday). However, it would hurt the struggling ones who do benefit from the exposure YouTube gives them. If the successful old-guard musicians sue YouTube out of business, it's the struggling new musicians who will suffer.

[TimothyBFan]

Well, I love ya, Willie, but no. If something is commercially available, you should buy it. That's the right thing to do.

I know times are hard, but a single song off of iTunes or a subscription service is just the price of a bottle of soda. Now, when they don't make them available that way and want to force you to buy the whole album just for one song, I know it can be tempting to just rip the song, but I still don't think it's right.

I make an exception for out of print and/or live material, neither of which can be purchased. That's also what I put on the site. If those become commercially available, I take them down. If the Eagles put some of the live clips I currently have online in their DVD retrospective, I'll take those down as well.

Looking at my iTunes, I'd say at least 90-95% of the stuff I've gotten off of YouTube is NOT commercially available. It's stupid, but I will get 10 versions of the same song from 10 different shows--again, I want it ALL!! Of course I went out and bought FW1 & HFO, etc.... So I guess I would say that yes, I do buy it that way if it's available to me. All you have to do is look at my iTunes and Amazon mp3 downloads to verify that. And I'm one who likes my hard copies of stuff, so I am very apt to buy cds/dvds---usually I buy those off of ebay or half.com so they are preowned but I can get a better price because I do buy so many.

I don't see that this is any different than getting all the bootlegs out there that people sell. Am I wrong? I own lots of those as a lot of other people here do also. Someone as filmed them illegally and then just sold them. Or how about those who trade bootlegs? What's the difference? Am I missing something?

[Topkat]

VA, I have a question for you....On very popular YouTube videos we are forced to watch a "commercial" before the video starts....Don't these advertisers pay to put a commercial on an artists video???? I would think so, therefore the artist does profit from the YouTube video! Is this correct?

[VAisForEagleLovers]

VA, I have a question for you....On very popular YouTube videos we are forced to watch a "commercial" before the video starts....Don't these advertisers pay to put a commercial on an artists video???? I would think so, therefore the artist does profit from the YouTube video! Is this correct?

I am not sure about this, but I think when it's an OFFICIAL video put up by the record label the label gets some money from it. Whether or not the artist gets something from it is dependant on their contract with the label.

[sodascouts]

I don't see that this is any different than getting all the bootlegs out there that people sell. Am I wrong? I own lots of those as a lot of other people here do also. Someone as filmed them illegally and then just sold them. Or how about those who trade bootlegs? What's the difference? Am I missing something?

I don't know if it makes a difference to anyone else, but to me, I think it's OK to trade the live shows because they're not commercially available. I don't trade stuff that's released. I think that would be wrong. Part of the reason I freely trade (and don't charge) is to keep others from illegitimately making money off of them who DO charge. However, Don's attitude about live bootleg trading has made me back off that, even. I only do it now by special request.

Still, I think it would be very sad if the wonderful performances of the past were lost forever because no one ever traded them. :(

[Topkat]

I am not sure about this, but I think when it's an OFFICIAL video put up by the record label the label gets some money from it. Whether or not the artist gets something from it is dependant on their contract with the label.

But even YT videos that are not "official" videos have commercials. I don't think some ad agency could just tack on a commercial to any video?? They couldn't get into the actual video without permission & advertise? Videos with lots of hits have commercials, so I think there is some way they make some "deal" with the maker of the video & pay them....I have heard that some YouTubers have made money on their home made videos this way.

[UK TimFan]

I was interested in the 'vanity' angle, as surely if you're saying that they don't to be filmed because 'they don't look their best' then that's like saying that some nights they don't make the effort to look their best for the fans. Which is surely short-changing the fans who've paid big bucks to see them? Why should I see an Eagle in (for example) an un-ironed shirt just because I see the show on Wednesday and not Thursday? I would have thought their insistence on sound perfection would apply to perfection in other areas of the show too.

I'm trying to remember if I actually read it, or imagined that, the Eagles filmed every show that they did. If they did, then the vanity issue wouldn't apply as a reason for them to not want the audience to film them. I know Barry Manilow films all his shows, and he's now made the archive public, though you have to subscribe. http://www.manilowarchives.com/
(Not sure if you get to see the whole show, or just some of it.)
The possible drawback to the Eagles doing this sort of thing is that I think they have a more limited number of songs to choose from than Barry.

ETA: After doing a bit more :headscratch: I think the 'videoed every show' came from something I read about them issuing the 40th anniversary DVD.

[sodascouts]

This may answer your question, TK:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090412092117AAbMuac

Musicians can indeed make money directly from ads, provided they are not contractually obligated to go through a record company and beholden to whatever deal they made in that regard:

http://receptivemusic.com/2011/08/artist-advice-how-to-make-money-through-youtube-ads/

Also, according to YouTube guidelines, no uploader can make money by posting material copyrighted to others.

[Topkat]

This may answer your question, TK:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090412092117AAbMuac

Musicians can indeed make money from ads:

http://receptivemusic.com/2011/08/artist-advice-how-to-make-money-through-youtube-ads/

Also, according to YouTube guidelines, no uploader can make money by posting material copyrighted to others.

Yes, that does answer my question, thanks. So artists can make money off Youtube & I see that many of them do. In that case, I don't see how Don has such a problem with this, because the artist can be paid if they are using their own material.....This all makes sense to me. Though the commercials can be annoying, it is a way to produce revenue from a medium that is so popular & not going anywhere.

UK; I do think the Eagles film their shows. There was a professional videographer there filming the show Sun night. Not sure that every show is videoed but that is possible & wouldn't surprise me.

[sodascouts]

Well, since much of YouTube's traffic is due to people watching illegally uploaded copyrighted content, one could argue YouTube illegitimately profits from illegal content. The way around this is to create one's own official channel, as Joe and Tim have both done.

Heck, Joe even linked to an "illegal" fanvid...

And yes, the Eagles film all their shows. I don't know what they do with the footage, though, since we haven't had a DVD for years. I hope some will appear on the retrospective.

[Topkat]

Sodascouts
That said, since much of YouTube's traffic is due to people watching illegally uploaded copyrighted content, one could argue YouTube illegitimately profits from illegal content.
__________________

But Youtube is a free site, & they only approve commercials for content that is legal, not the illegal stuff.

[sodascouts]

No, I don't believe they necessarily thoroughly check before placing the ads. Even if they did, they would not have as much traffic - and therefore, not as many people clicking on their ads on search pages and the like, even if the ads aren't on the videos themselves - if it weren't for the illegal stuff. There's a difference between a site like mine that makes no money off the artists and a site like that which is monetized. YouTube takes copyrighted material down as soon as it's brought to their attention (as they are legally required to do under the DMCA (http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/hr2281.pdf)) and they also have audio/video-matching software in place to try to block the uploading of videos that violate copyright, but it's not hard to get around those with a little ingenuity. The illegitimate uploads still exist and are still what people often come to YouTube to see.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

It can be confusing. The video I posted yesterday of Renegade by Styx (on Facebook) has an 'ad-sense' pop-up (the ad doesn't pop-up when played within FB...interesting). The person who uploaded it doesn't have the copyrights to the song or the video clips. However, Styx has given permission for this song to be used by the Steelers and their fans (or so I've read), and I would assume the person paid the NFL for the use of the clips. I don't see where the video says it was used by permission, yet this is a clear case of what would appear to be two copyright violations and yet the person who uploaded it is getting revenue from the ads.

[TimothyBFan]

I'm trying to remember if I actually read it, or imagined that, the Eagles filmed every show that they did. If they did, then the vanity issue wouldn't apply as a reason for them to not want the audience to film them. I know Barry Manilow films all his shows, and he's now made the archive public, though you have to subscribe. http://www.manilowarchives.com/
(Not sure if you get to see the whole show, or just some of it.)
The possible drawback to the Eagles doing this sort of thing is that I think they have a more limited number of songs to choose from than Barry.


I'd so be all over this if the Eagles did this!! And the subscription would be so worth whatever they charged and the Eagles would make some money from the subscriptions. Win/win!!!! :thumbsup:

[TimothyBFan]

It can be confusing. The video I posted yesterday of Renegade by Styx (on Facebook) has an 'ad-sense' pop-up (the ad doesn't pop-up when played within FB...interesting). The person who uploaded it doesn't have the copyrights to the song or the video clips. However, Styx has given permission for this song to be used by the Steelers and their fans (or so I've read), and I would assume the person paid the NFL for the use of the clips. I don't see where the video says it was used by permission, yet this is a clear case of what would appear to be two copyright violations and yet the person who uploaded it is getting revenue from the ads.

From my experience (and I'm in no way a Styx expert) but I'd be willing to bet Styx wouldn't care one way or the other. Like I've said before, they play up to anyone in the audience that has a camera and at the concert I went to in June, after hamming it up for one camera during a song, Tommy yelled, "put that sh*t on YouTube!!". :hilarious:

[sodascouts]

It can be confusing. The video I posted yesterday of Renegade by Styx (on Facebook) has an 'ad-sense' pop-up (the ad doesn't pop-up when played within FB...interesting). The person who uploaded it doesn't have the copyrights to the song or the video clips. However, Styx has given permission for this song to be used by the Steelers and their fans (or so I've read), and I would assume the person paid the NFL for the use of the clips. I don't see where the video says it was used by permission, yet this is a clear case of what would appear to be two copyright violations and yet the person who uploaded it is getting revenue from the ads.

No, the uploader doesn't get revenue unless they're a partner. If ads are popping up, it's because Styx has allowed YouTube to put ads up on their behalf on illegally uploaded videos of their songs instead of ordering YouTube to take it down. It's a choice a lot of artists are making.

You can find more info here:

http://futureofmusic.org/blog/2011/10/18/royalties-kitteh-youtube-and-artist-compensation

Here is the relevant excerpt from that article:
"When a song — whether part of a static slideshow or the background music for a home movie — is matched in YouTube database, the site provides the copyright holder three options:

1. Take it down. As the copyright holder, you can outright block the use of the song in a particular video. YouTube will notify the user, inform them of the infringement associated with the use of the song and tell that user the stop the use of the song.

2. Track it. Say you don’t want YouTube to send a takedown notice to the user who is soundtracking their movie with your song, as [you] see marketing potential as a result of the video getting some traffic. some traffic You can choose to simply track the “success” of that video by being notified periodically of the video statistics on views, demographics, referrals and engagement.

3. Get paid. As the exclusive copyright holder, you can choose to monetize the use of your song on YouTube. Once you have chosen this option and your song is matched, YouTube will track the use of that video with ads and share that revenue with you, the artist or rightsholder."

[Topkat]

I'd so be all over this if the Eagles did this!! And the subscription would be so worth whatever they charged and the Eagles would make some money from the subscriptions. Win/win!!!! :thumbsup:

I would be too. I mean I love to go to the shows, but let's face it, if they are playing in Japan or Australia, I know I won't be going to that. I would love to see the shows they do especially the overseas shows! Even the US shows, it's unlikely I would be able to attend more than one or two.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

From my experience (and I'm in no way a Styx expert) but I'd be willing to bet Styx wouldn't care one way or the other. Like I've said before, they play up to anyone in the audience that has a camera and at the concert I went to in June, after hamming it up for one camera during a song, Tommy yelled, "put that sh*t on YouTube!!". :hilarious:

I've seen interviews where they say they are completely honored to have Renegade played in the stadium when the defense needs a pick-me-up. I can't even imagine one of their concerts in Pittsburgh when that song is played! They were showed a YouTube video during the interview and were very supportive. However, guaranteed the NFL isn't as 'sharing'. Those out there who think Don goes a little crazy over this issue would think the NFL completely insane. Anyway, my point is, just because Styx doesn't care doesn't mean YouTube should allow a revenue-generating ad to be placed on the video, unless it's in writing from Styx. And the NFL.

[sodascouts]

Anyway, my point is, just because Styx doesn't care doesn't mean YouTube should allow a revenue-generating ad to be placed on the video, unless it's in writing from Styx. And the NFL.

Which it very well might be. See my above post (https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=192558&postcount=34).

ETA: YouTube is secretive about how they place ads, though. On their site, they imply they do so only at the copyright holder's behest, but they never actually say that... and if that's the case, why do we have ads on videos like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUbTW928sMU)?

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I wonder how it works when the music is owned by one entity and the content is owned by another? I thought the NFL required the words 'used by permission of the NFL' or something like that on all clips of their footage. Like with concerts, the NFL owns the copyrights to video taken by fans in the stands. They are an organization that sues people for allowing too many people to view one broadcast over public TV, so they don't play nicely. Maybe they just pick and choose what they go after and what they let go and rake in the ad revenue.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

3. Get paid. As the exclusive copyright holder, you can choose to monetize the use of your song on YouTube. Once you have chosen this option and your song is matched, YouTube will track the use of that video with ads and share that revenue with you, the artist or rightsholder."
[/INDENT]

The HC video that was referenced in the 9/02 concert thread has no ads on it at all. Not on the page anywhere, or on or in the video. I assume that if the Eagles opt for #3 (not that they would) that would get an ad placed on it? Otherwise, it's just out there for free?

[sodascouts]

It's very confusing. I did some more research and they are not very up-front about how this is handled. Here's what I edited to add on my previous post:


YouTube is secretive about how they place ads, though. On their site, they imply they do so only at the copyright holder's behest, but they never actually say that... and if that's the case, why do we have ads on videos like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUbTW928sMU)?


It also appears that until it becomes popular enough to garner YouTube's interest or catches the eye of the copyright holder, then yes, it is "out there for free." That way, users will continue to upload their videos, and when/if they build an audience, YouTube (or rather, its parent company Google) can cash in.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Who actually owns the copyright on HC? Do we know?

[Topkat]

Yes, it's all VERY confusing because that HC video came up first with an ad, then the 2nd time without an ad. The person that loaded it doesn't have any copyrights to it....so WTH??? It also has over 5 million hits How does that not get noticed?

Now I'm more confused than ever!

[sodascouts]

The way YouTube makes its money bears closer investigation. I'll do more research tonight. One can't make strong arguments unless one is accurately informed.

[sodascouts]

OK, here is what I found out.

YouTube does NOT automatically place ads on uploaded content. However, if an video or channel receives a great deal of traffic and views, YouTube will approach the user about becoming a partner (the user can also apply to become a partner at any time).

A partner has ads placed on his channel and videos, and shares in the revenue generated by those ads. They receive a portion and YouTube/Google receives a portion. However, in order to become a partner, the user must not violate YouTube guidelines which include the uploading of copyrighted material. (I got this information from YouTube's partner page (http://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/partner.html#utm_campaign=us_ypp&utm_medium=ha&utm_source=us_ypp_skws).)

Indeed, YouTube promises advertisers that its content partners undergo a "thorough vetting (http://www.youtube.com/t/advertising_partnerwatch)."

Therefore, theoretically, no one is able to profit from material he or she does not own the rights to.

If the user has ads on his/her video and is NOT a partner, then it is because the material the user uploaded is copyrighted to an artist or entity that has entered into a partnership with YouTube and has exercised the option detailed in an above post to make money off of videos that have been uploaded by users without the copyright holder's consent.

The only catch is this: is YouTube really as diligent as they claim in "vetting" partners and ensuring that no one is illegitimately making money off of videos they don't own the copyright to? Seeing this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUbTW928sMU) makes me wonder.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Good detective work, Soda. But it is why I was wondering who owns the copyright to HC. Copyrights are held by the songwriters?

[sodascouts]

Who actually owns the copyright on HC? Do we know?
This is what it says on the liner notes of The Very Best of the Eagles regarding the song "Hotel California":
© 1976 Cass County Music/Red Cloud Music (BMI)/Fingers Music (ASCAP)
Those entities represent Henley, Frey, and Felder, respectively.

However, I believe Warner Brothers (their record company) owns the copyright to the original recording. That's what it says on the Hotel California liner notes, at least:

©1976 Elektra / Asylum / Nonesuch Records, 962 North La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90069. A Division of Warner Communications Inc.
I remember Don Henley made some statements about the related issue of termination rights here (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/don-henley-urges-artists-to-know-their-rights/), which is a bit tangential for this topic but worth reading if you are interested in such things.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Thanks for the refresher, I had read it before. So, if my thinking is correct (I'll be the first to admit the glass of red I just drank has about knocked me out) WB owns the original recordings, so anything out there using the music off a CD/mp3/album belongs to WB and they can give permission or have an ad placed on it? Copies of live recordings would belong to CC/RC/FM? What happens if one of the three gives permission and puts ads on it? Seems like all three would have to be in agreement to do anything, right?

If my thinking is correct, it explains how ads got put on some and yet others get yanked.

[Topkat]

Wow, I'm impressed with your detective work Soda. I guess that explains why HC never seems to be pulled off YouTube & some other songs are yanked right away. I would guess then that if WB owns the rights to HC, they must have paid for them at some point???? And I'm sure paid BIG, so they have the right to collect on advertising on YouTube & let it out there.

But when you mention Live recordings, does that include the video off say HFO? because that is still up with almost 5 million views. That is the video I posted over in the Sept 2, concert thread.
That must be owned by WB as well, or I think it would have been taken down by now. It's up a long time.

[sodascouts]

There does not have to be consensus for something to get yanked - just one complaint from any involved party will do it. Heck, Joe Walsh's lawyers got YouTube to yank down a Stevie Nicks fanvid just because it had photos of him in it! (A complete abuse of the power to yank, btw.)

Now, monetization is another matter altogether.

Warner Brothers can post ads and gain revenue from Henley's videos from Inside Job, as they do here (https://www.youtube.com/user/warnerbrosrecords/videos?query=don+henley), because they own the rights to those recordings and videos. However, they do not have the right to place their ads on other versions of the song.

A songwriter does. However, if he or she shares the copyright with someone else, he/she has to provide evidence that the other party/parties involved have granted permission for the ads to be placed.

[sodascouts]

Wow, I'm impressed with your detective work Soda. I guess that explains why HC never seems to be pulled off YouTube & some other songs are yanked right away. I would guess then that if WB owns the rights to HC, they must have paid for them at some point???? And I'm sure paid BIG, so they have the right to collect on advertising on YouTube & let it out there.

Back in the 70s, the Eagles signed a deal with their record company granting them the rights. The record company didn't buy the rights from the Eagles. They had them at the beginning. This is not only true for Hotel California, but for all of their albums except those released by the "Eagles Recording Company" like Long Road Out of Eden.

Also, it should be said that just because something isn't yanked off of YouTube doesn't mean it's been approved. In many cases, they just haven't been spotted.


But when you mention Live recordings, does that include the video off say HFO? because that is still up with almost 5 million views. That is the video I posted over in the Sept 2, concert thread.
That must be owned by WB as well, or I think it would have been taken down by now. It's up a long time.The amount of time a video has been up doesn't mean anything. I had videos up for two years before they were eventually taken down for copyright violation. Sometimes it takes a while. Don't ask me why - I don't know.

A live recording may be put out by a different record company and not be owned by the same company who owned the original recording. HFO was put out by Geffen Records. However, I believe Geffen Records merged with/was purchased by WB, so HFO is indeed under WB's purview.

My friend Kendel once worked for a country artist, and one of her duties was to scour YouTube and report user-uploaded videos of his songs. Maybe the Eagles have somebody doing that, too!

[Topkat]

This is so complicated, let the lawyers figure it out. That's what they get paid for! LOL I guess every situation is different & if something gets yanked off YouTube, the lawyers have found a way to do it. I guess this is why most artists have just accepted it & don't bother with all this. Just the job of having people constantly troll YT & pay lawyers to do this maybe just isn't worth it.

[sodascouts]

You can get a video yanked as easy as pie. You don't even have to prove you're the copyright holder unless the user fights back - it's "guilty until proven innocent." It's easier for YouTube to just assume the uploader is in the wrong and take down the video than go to the trouble of investigating each instance.

That's how Joe's lawyers were able to get the Stevie Nicks video taken down, although he had no rights to it whatsoever, nor did he take any of the photos that were used in the song and therefore he had no rights to them either.

As the above demonstrates, the record companies and some artists can take advantage of the "guilty until proven innocent" policy by submitting claims on anything that is even remotely connected to them, sometimes not even watching the video first and just assuming it probably violates copyright. Some just do automated searches and file claims against everything that has certain keywords in it. All of it gets taken down right away. This has led to a lot of mistakes. Here's a recent example:

NASA Video Taken Down by False Copyright Claim (http://q103albany.com/nasa-video-taken-down-by-false-copyright-claim-tech-tuesday/)

[TimothyBFan]

How confusing and in a lot of cases, over the top it sounds like. I just want to hear the music and watch the videos!!! :dizzy:

[sodascouts]

YouTube does try to cover its rear end and accommodate copyright holders. However, many artists won't be happy until YouTube previews every video to ensure it doesn't violate copyright before it is made available, thus relieving artists of the burden of policing YouTube themselves. Such policing costs artists time and trouble, and incurs ill will from fans. For instance, Don Henley's mass-purging of videos turned the words "Cass County Music" into curse words among YouTube users (this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGIqhk9Wdk), this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBSDbhS37bA), this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcZOkIGaiLs) , this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAn0EYHp0ok), and this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybH-qY6bAjY) are a few examples; although the latter is apparently not exactly an intellectual giant, his emotions ring true for many.) Henley's purges achieved a level of infamy that has otherwise only been reached by record companies and corporations.

Artists like Don Henley want YouTube to be held accountable - ie, liable - for any copyrighted material it hosts without the copyright holder's explicit consent. While making life easier for the artists, this would create a catastrophic situation for YouTube as it currently exists, and would force it to make fundamental changes that would probably eventually lead to the site losing its popularity and relevance a la Napster. While this outcome is of course perfectly acceptable to the artists in question, the legal precedents that would be set and the legislation that would be required to put this into action has so far had Constitutionally unacceptable collateral damage for the rest of us.

[Topkat]

Wow, watching that video & seeing the comments under it is the stuff I see all over YouTube under comments of Eagles songs, only worse. It seems there is a lot of hatred for Mr. Henley regarding this subject. In fact, looks like they have lost some people who had previously been fans.....That's not good.
They even take down anyone doing a cover of a song.

I don't even know what to say about it. I just think it's a shame, but Henley stands behind what he says. Even if it's not just Don doing this, and other members of the Eagles are also involved, Don seems to be the one taking the hit for it because he has been the most outspoken about it.

I just wish things were different, but things aren't likely to change.

[StephUK]

The destruction of YouTube would actually HURT many musicians. Yeah, it wouldn't hurt the established ones like the Eagles who don't need the exposure (as Don sarcastically reminded us Saturday). However, it would hurt the struggling ones who do benefit from the exposure YouTube gives them. If the successful old-guard musicians sue YouTube out of business, it's the struggling new musicians who will suffer.


I agreed with you, and did think about including these points in my post at the start of this thread.
I'm sure if the Eagles were just starting out today, struggling to get gigs and make a living then they would use YouTube(and other social media) to promote themselves to the public. These things weren't around when they started, but I bet they used all the available media to promote themselves and their albums & shows; and wanted music mags to review their albums & live shows.

If the Eagles continue this legal battle they'll be harming the music business NOT protecting it.

[StephUK]

Wow, watching that video & seeing the comments under it is the stuff I see all over YouTube under comments of Eagles songs, only worse. It seems there is a lot of hatred for Mr. Henley regarding this subject. In fact, looks like they have lost some people who had previously been fans.....That's not good.
They even take down anyone doing a cover of a song.

In addition to this, I wonder how much this is costing Don and/or the Eagles in legal fees? maybe more than they're allegedly losing in ticket sales:hmm:

[Topkat]

Quote StephUK
In addition to this, I wonder how much this is costing Don and/or the Eagles in legal fees? maybe more than they're allegedly losing in ticket sales

Do you really think this is costing them in ticket sales? I don't. They hardly even do many concerts, so the ones they do will sell out. It may actually be costing them in cd & dvd sales because it seems some people are so against Don's actions that they refuse to support the Eagles music in any way...
Of course it doesn't affect the hard core fans, but some people seem to be totally turned off by them.:sad::sad:

[Tiffanny Twisted]

I was interested in the 'vanity' angle, as surely if you're saying that they don't to be filmed because 'they don't look their best' then that's like saying that some nights they don't make the effort to look their best for the fans. Which is surely short-changing the fans who've paid big bucks to see them? Why should I see an Eagle in (for example) an un-ironed shirt just because I see the show on Wednesday and not Thursday? I would have thought their insistence on sound perfection would apply to perfection in other areas of the show too.

I'm trying to remember if I actually read it, or imagined that, the Eagles filmed every show that they did. If they did, then the vanity issue wouldn't apply as a reason for them to not want the audience to film them. I know Barry Manilow films all his shows, and he's now made the archive public, though you have to subscribe. http://www.manilowarchives.com/
(Not sure if you get to see the whole show, or just some of it.)
The possible drawback to the Eagles doing this sort of thing is that I think they have a more limited number of songs to choose from than Barry.

ETA: After doing a bit more :headscratch: I think the 'videoed every show' came from something I read about them issuing the 40th anniversary DVD.



Ok when I said in another thread about not looking their best it had nothing to do with ironed or unironed shirts. I ment. If it is a professional videographer , then they will always look great cause of the quality of the equipment being used and the talent of the people taking it.
Mot on someones cell phone or home movie camera..Thats what I ment.
They especially seem to be concerned about how they look on camera or pictures taken of them for that matter.
TT

[StephUK]

Quote StephUK

Do you really think this is costing them in ticket sales? I don't. They hardly even do many concerts, so the ones they do will sell out. It may actually be costing them in cd & dvd sales because it seems some people are so against Don's actions that they refuse to support the Eagles music in any way...
Of course it doesn't affect the hard core fans, but some people seem to be totally turned off by them.:sad::sad:


Topkat, I did say 'allegedly' losing them in tickets sales. I was being ironic!! I don't believe they lose either. I haven't seen that many empty seats at the shows I've been to.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Here's what I don't get. People are attempting to do something illegal, they find they can't do the illegal thing. They spew vitriol at Don for it and we're supposed to take the side of the 'poor' person whose video was taken down?

My mother tried this tactic last year when she passed a policeman doing around 80 in a 65 mph speed zone on her way to my house. The entire weekend she ranted about how it was the policeman's fault. (She claims he kept going faster and all she wanted to do was get back in the right-hand lane). We had a big argument over it and it wasn't until the weekend was over and my brother talked to her about it that she finally understood that just maybe the policeman wasn't to blame. It had me seriously wondering about her mental stability.

I realize that the incident with my mother, while very sadly true, is different. She had to pay a fine and has points on her license. I'm still trying to figure out the impact the yanked videos have had.

As I've stated before, even if the laws are changed, it's a moral issue. The phrase 'other artists allow it' doesn't take away from the fact that it's wrong. I find it very sad that our society has degenerated to the point where Thou Shalt Not Steal has come to mean Thou Shalt Not Steal Unless Everyone Else Is Doing It Too.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, we all have our little vices. Mine just isn't posting illegal videos :grin: If I'm gonna do something wrong, it's gonna be a lot more exciting than that. I hope.

[StephUK]

The impact that the yanked videos has had is that it has upset their fans. The people who pay to go to the shows; the people who have put them where they are and funded their comfortable lifestyles.
(It was reported that the Eagles netted $5.5 million dollars(to be shared between the 4 of them) from their LROOE Tour alone for the financial year 2008-09 - that's not including album sales. Not a bad annual salary!)

Yes, they have the law on their side(and I'm not in any way promoting anarchy) but isn't it being a bit churlish to evoke it under the circumstances?

The trouble with you and me is the trouble with this nation
Too many blessings, too little appreciation
(my Thanksgiving - Don Henley)

[StephUK]

P.S. I'm putting my armoured vest on right now, 'cos I'm sure I'm going to receive some bullets about the above post. :armed:

I'll get off my soap box now. No offence to anyone intended. I just enjoy a lively discussion. The Eagles are by no means the only band that raise my heckles from time to time!

At the end of the day I still love the Eagles music & their live shows.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

At the end of the day I still love the Eagles music & their live shows.

Don't worry, Steph, I knew when I posted it that people would be unhappy with it! The only real point I was trying to make is that even when an artist lets it go and/or outright encourages it, what they are really saying is 'It's OK to steal from me.' If you realize that and go ahead, with their permission and do that, then it's a personal decision.

I have a strong belief in 'what goes around comes around', and it works on both sides of the issue. It could be that the Eagles could handle this better and even though they're in the right, how they handle being in the right is as important as how they would handle being in the wrong. I truly feel that for the most part, they feel they have the big name (due to the numbers you posted), they have the voice. Struggling artists can't stand up for themselves, and so they try to do it for them.

I did think about this earlier... Given what others have said about other artists allowing filming and encouraging it (although I've never experienced that), there was nothing on the ticket that said it couldn't be done. At the 9/02 event, security wasn't telling people as they walked in that they couldn't film. Most people came into the hall after the announcement that no one listens to anyway. A lot of people might not even realize that this is illegal, and a casual fan might not know the band's stance on the subject. Until Glenn said, "no filming" during Lyin' Eyes, people might not have realized it was an issue. Given that, I think it's important that when they request it, mid-concert, they need to be as pleasant about it as possible. And they should get their manager, who runs the company that issues the tickets, to put it on the ticket. So people know ahead of time the Eagles aren't one of those groups who say 'It's OK.'

[Tiffanny Twisted]

Don't worry, Steph, I knew when I posted it that people would be unhappy with it! The only real point I was trying to make is that even when an artist lets it go and/or outright encourages it, what they are really saying is 'It's OK to steal from me.' If you realize that and go ahead, with their permission and do that, then it's a personal decision.

I have a strong belief in 'what goes around comes around', and it works on both sides of the issue. It could be that the Eagles could handle this better and even though they're in the right, how they handle being in the right is as important as how they would handle being in the wrong. I truly feel that for the most part, they feel they have the big name (due to the numbers you posted), they have the voice. Struggling artists can't stand up for themselves, and so they try to do it for them.

I did think about this earlier... Given what others have said about other artists allowing filming and encouraging it (although I've never experienced that), there was nothing on the ticket that said it couldn't be done. At the 9/02 event, security wasn't telling people as they walked in that they couldn't film. Most people came into the hall after the announcement that no one listens to anyway. A lot of people might not even realize that this is illegal, and a casual fan might not know the band's stance on the subject. Until Glenn said, "no filming" during Lyin' Eyes, people might not have realized it was an issue. Given that, I think it's important that when they request it, mid-concert, they need to be as pleasant about it as possible. And they should get their manager, who runs the company that issues the tickets, to put it on the ticket. So people know ahead of time the Eagles aren't one of those groups who say 'It's OK.'
funny , ha ha that you should mention that...
I was looking at a eagles scrap book from 2008 LROOE tour, Saw them three times. NO RECORDING DEVICE OR CAMERAS ALLOWED ARE ON THOSE TICKET STUBS'. sOMEONE IN their managment , dropped the ball at the revel if they stiil feel the way they did in 2008

[sodascouts]

The Eagles are within their rights to take down the videos which contain songs where they hold the copyright (although not beyond that). However, as dreamer said elsewhere regarding another topic...

Just because they CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD.

In Texas, it is illegal to take more than three sips from a beer while standing. (No lie. That's a real law.) Bar owners would be perfectly within their rights to call the police on patrons who are doing so, and/or throw those patrons out and refuse to serve them ever again. And those patrons are in the wrong. It's sinful and immoral to break the law. These people are shamelessly disobeying the law and thereby contributing to societal degeneration and moral decay. However, if the bar owners called these people out, they'd wind up losing business and wouldn't be doing themselves any favors.

There's a reason why some artists encourage it, and it's not because they're OK with stealing. They're OK with it because they don't consider it stealing. Not everyone looks at this in black and white.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well I also enjoy a lively debate when it's done intelligently and respectfully as this one has been. On this issue, I totally agree with VA. I don't hate YouTube and I enjoy watching some videos that are posted on it. However, I believe it is totally up to the artists about whether or not they choose to use it and I totally respect whether they want their intellectual property posted on it. In the case of the Eagles, while they may have a few people hate on them for their choices, by and large, I don't think the huge majority of people care one way or another. I think a lot of artists' attitudes about YouTube and social networking is generational, but that doesn't make anyone right or wrong. I think it's a personal decision. I can relate to the way the band feels because I know how I feel about someone posting my picture on the internet. I'm just personally not jazzed about it - but, I certainly don't condemn them for posting their own pictures if they want.

[StephUK]

Perhaps I'll just make one more post on this topic, which might explain better where I stand on this subject.

If we were talking about a multi-national organisation sending their staff into live shows, under the pretence of being fans, but specifically to take videos which would then be professionally mixed & packaged for sale then I would be standing right up there next to Don on this one. But if it's a few genuine fans taking a few poor quality videos, sorry Don but I can't really see what all the fuss is about.

BTW, I have never taken videos at the Eagles or anyone else's live shows and I never will, but I have downloaded a video from YouTube now & then.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

BTW, I have never taken videos at the Eagles or anyone else's live shows and I never will, but I have downloaded a video from YouTube now & then.

Besides the rightness and wrongness of the issue, I don't get why some people video an entire concert. Maybe he was there because his wife pressured him into going, or friends, or whatever, but the guy who posted the HC video last week also posted at least five or six other videos from the same concert. He basically watched the entire concert through a lens and now all he has to remember the concert by is a poor quality (visual but especially audio) video recording. I can't imagine why he would pay that much money to get into a concert (not to mention brave those escalators!) and then do that instead of enjoying it. But perhaps he didn't really want to be there in the first place.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

The Eagles are within their rights to take down the videos which contain songs where they hold the copyright (although not beyond that). However, as dreamer said elsewhere regarding another topic...

Just because they CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD.

In Texas, it is illegal to take more than three sips from a beer while standing. (No lie. That's a real law.) Bar owners would be perfectly within their rights to call the police on patrons who are doing so, and/or throw those patrons out and refuse to serve them ever again. And those patrons are in the wrong. It's sinful and immoral to break the law. These people are shamelessly disobeying the law and thereby contributing to societal degeneration and moral decay. However, if the bar owners called these people out, they'd wind up losing business and wouldn't be doing themselves any favors.

There's a reason why some artists encourage it, and it's not because they're OK with stealing. They're OK with it because they don't consider it stealing. Not everyone looks at this in black and white.

Yes, there are a lot of stupid laws still on the books. I'm pretty sure that sipping a beer you've paid for while standing isn't harming anyone unless you're doing it at a concert and those behind you are sitting. It's still illegal, and if someone arrested you for it, you don't have a leg to stand on. I will say that what Dreamer posted can be turned around. Just because an artist allows you to take video and post it doesn't mean you should.

I realize that as a software person, my whole world tends to be black or white, on or off, with very little shades of gray. A large part of that is because I don't feel it's up to me to judge mitigating circumstances unless it's a possible wrong done to me, and certainly not up to me to judge shades of gray when I'm the one doing the wrong.

[sodascouts]

Here's some food for thought.

In terms of black and white, if it is immoral for someone to post a video that contains copyrighted material, it is also immoral to encourage that behavior by watching the video.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Here's some food for thought.

In terms of black and white, if it is immoral for someone to post a video that contains copyrighted material, it is also immoral to encourage that behavior by watching the video.

Yep.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Okay - I'm going to inject some 'gray' here. I don't necessarily considered every act that breaks a law to be immoral. That assumes that all laws are moral and I don't believe that to be the case. If that were the case, the American Revolution would have never happened - and that's just one example.

To bring this back to the YouTube and copyright violation issues - to me, it's a matter of respecting the artists' wishes. If they are okay with their intellectual property being posted, then it's not wrong. If they aren't okay with it, then it is wrong. For me, it's pretty simple - respect their wishes without passing judgment on them. Their reasons are their reasons.

[Freypower]

Here's some food for thought.

In terms of black and white, if it is immoral for someone to post a video that contains copyrighted material, it is also immoral to encourage that behavior by watching the video.

So are you saying you want me to delete the link to YouTube I posted to Glenn's forum yesterday?

I will do so if you wish but you will have to issue some sort of edict that you do not wish people to post YouTube links any more.

As to what I think about this, I have stayed out of this discussion and I will continue to do so. I will abide by the rules of this board if such a rule is introduced.

[Tiffanny Twisted]

:guitar::headbang:ok,thats not how i wanna see a concert....

just enjoy the moment you are in at the time it is happening.....

[VAisForEagleLovers]

So are you saying you want me to delete the link to YouTube I posted to Glenn's forum yesterday?

I will do so if you wish but you will have to issue some sort of edict that you do not wish people to post YouTube links any more.

As to what I think about this, I have stayed out of this discussion and I will continue to do so. I will abide by the rules of this board if such a rule is introduced.

FP, I don't want to put words in Nancy's mouth but I think the point she was trying to get across is that if I believe it's wrong to post the videos (and I do) then I shouldn't post links to them (and she's right). I will say that when, on Facebook, I post links to videos, it's usually at the express wish of the artist to do so. Most of what I post are Christian music videos and their agenda is a little different and they want people to 'spread the Word'. But it's not always those kinds of requests and therefore I shouldn't do it since I feel it's wrong.

[Topkat]

As I've stated before, even if the laws are changed, it's a moral issue. The phrase 'other artists allow it' doesn't take away from the fact that it's wrong. I find it very sad that our society has degenerated to the point where Thou Shalt Not Steal has come to mean Thou Shalt Not Steal Unless Everyone Else Is Doing It Too.

I have such a different take on this whole "morality & illegal" issue! This is FREE ADVERTISING & FREE PUBLICITY for an artist, & that is how most people see it, artists included. Most people aren't making ANY money off these videos at all. In fact the Eagles should be glad people still even want to see them after 40 years. The younger generation find out about them through video. They don't get that THEY are the ones that benefit from it....and I bet if they were a young band just starting out now, they would be happy to have people watch them on YouTube and they wouldn't be taking this so far.

[sodascouts]

FP, I don't want to put words in Nancy's mouth but I think the point she was trying to get across is that if I believe it's wrong to post the videos (and I do) then I shouldn't post links to them (and she's right). I will say that when, on Facebook, I post links to videos, it's usually at the express wish of the artist to do so. Most of what I post are Christian music videos and their agenda is a little different and they want people to 'spread the Word'. But it's not always those kinds of requests and therefore I shouldn't do it since I feel it's wrong.

The comment wasn't just directed at you, VA. There are many people who condemn others for putting up videos and question their morality, yet happily view and/or share those same videos. Like I said, it's food for thought.

If I instituted a policy forbidding linking to YouTube videos, I would be a big fat hypocrite... and that's not very moral, either.

[Topkat]

Besides the rightness and wrongness of the issue, I don't get why some people video an entire concert. Maybe he was there because his wife pressured him into going, or friends, or whatever, but the guy who posted the HC video last week also posted at least five or six other videos from the same concert. He basically watched the entire concert through a lens and now all he has to remember the concert by is a poor quality (visual but especially audio) video recording. I can't imagine why he would pay that much money to get into a concert (not to mention brave those escalators!) and then do that instead of enjoying it. But perhaps he didn't really want to be there in the first place.

The show was 20 songs, so if he videos 5 or 6 that is about 1/4 of the show, & taping just requires holding up the camera without looking through the lens. It's very easy to video these days which is why everyone does it. He was in the back anyway, not enjoying front row seats like US! Someone in the front even had the nerve to try to video! That, I would never do with the Eagles, but I did video both Joe & Tim's solo shows, but only about 2 or 3 songs. They did not say anything about NO video at these shows at all. If they did, I would not have videoed them.
Seems several people on this board have posted his videos on FB? Yes :)

[TimothyBFan]

WOW!!! JUST WOW!!!!!

Some thoughts as I read this thread....

I also wanted to ask those that feel it's just wrong to do this since it's a violation, etc..., how often do you watch these videos and or repost them to this board or FB? Let's face it, everyone here has expressed how we can't wait to see pictures, we can't wait to see videos, etc... after a concert. Many of us scour YouTube as soon as there's been a show, trying to find them. Does that make all of us wrong in doing so?

Another thought I had regarding the legislation changes, attorneys being involved, etc.... How much time and money is being taken by these kind of things when, in my opinion, there are so many more important and pressing issues that should be taken care of by legislators. This subject seems a bit petty when you put it all into perspective. Again, just my opinion.

Another point I wish to make, I think a lot of this is HOW it's handled too. I have never put anything on YouTube but when Glenn or Don start berating the audience about recording, I actually start feeling guilty because I watch those and I know how they feel. It's one thing to see it on a ticket stub and think that maybe it's coming from someone other than the guys I love but when they do that, during a show, that's when I really have a problem with it. I don't know if I want to feel ashamed and cry because I might make Don unhappy or if I want to just stand up and scream, "get over yourself!". KWIM?

[VAisForEagleLovers]

TBF, obviously I can't speak for others. I will say that I have an 'issue' with live music in general. It's one of the reasons I love the Eagles. I don't need perfect, but I refuse to pay good money to hear notes off key or someone murdering their own songs worse than I do in the shower. So you can just imagine what I think of the poor quality videos.

I did post the HC video on FB, the one where you can see me standing. For my friends that keep asking me why I pay so much money for front row tickets. I watched and listened to it once, then played it again ON MUTE in order to get the screen capture that I posted. I did watch part of the Long Run video that was from the side, and unfortunately, now my memories of that song are of seeing him from the side instead of him standing right in front of me. So I didn't watch any more of any of them.

I watched one of the videos from Glenn's show in DC, and I watch videos posted by Jack Tempchin and of course the 'official' ones pushed out by Glenn and Joe (and other artists). Other than that, I can honestly say I haven't watched videos posted here or on YouTube. Many have commented they are shocked I haven't seen a lot of the bootleg concerts before, but this is why. I do feel it's wrong, but mostly, I'll be honest, it's the quality issue and it really is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me. When I'm 95 and can barely remember my own name, I don't want my memories of this great band to be shaky distant video in mono instead of stereo.

There's a saying among performers of all types, not just musicians, that a friend of mine reminded me of last night. 'Do not work for free under the guise of good exposure. It's bad exposure. If you don't value your own work, no one else will either.' If today's process for musicians means that in order to be successful they need to give their stuff out for free on YouTube and such sites, then the process is broken and needs to be fixed. I think this is the point Don and the others are trying to make, although it's not like we've had a conversation about it :)

ETA: I forgot that I shared the 9/11 video with newclips of Hole In The World yesterday.

[TimothyBFan]

Thanks for the answer VA!



I watched and listened to it once, then played it again ON MUTE in order to get the screen capture that I posted.


Now doesn't this open a whole new can of worms? :hilarious:

[Topkat]

WOW!!! JUST WOW!!!!!

Some thoughts as I read this thread....

I also wanted to ask those that feel it's just wrong to do this since it's a violation, etc..., how often do you watch these videos and or repost them to this board or FB? Let's face it, everyone here has expressed how we can't wait to see pictures, we can't wait to see videos, etc... after a concert. Many of us scour YouTube as soon as there's been a show, trying to find them. Does that make all of us wrong in doing so?

Another thought I had regarding the legislation changes, attorneys being involved, etc.... How much time and money is being taken by these kind of things when, in my opinion, there are so many more important and pressing issues that should be taken care of by legislators. This subject seems a bit petty when you put it all into perspective. Again, just my opinion.


Let's face facts here. WE HAVE ALL WATCHED or POSTED videos of the Eagles from YouTube, so whether it's once or 100 times, it's still in violation of the copyright, & considered "Stealing". How harmful is this really to the artist? Even if the video is poor quality, I think people know a high quality video from a poor one. Some of them are actually good, not all, but some. Is a poor quality video going to damage the reputation of the Eagles?? I think not.

I loved seeing some of the AC show on video, even if it wasn't great quality. I can't remember the show later on. I know it was so much better than that video, but it doesn't really matter to me. It's nice to have the memory recorded. My brain can't recall a show I have seen years later.

According to some article written about the richest drummers, Don Henley is worth $300 Million dollars, so he doesn't seem to be hurting any for this. I would think he would have something better to do with his time & money than make a huge issue over this. In the grand scheme of things, YES, IT"S VERY PETTY!

[sodascouts]

There's a saying among performers of all types, not just musicians, that a friend of mine reminded me of last night. 'Do not work for free under the guise of good exposure. It's bad exposure. If you don't value your own work, no one else will either.' If today's process for musicians means that in order to be successful they need to give their stuff out for free on YouTube and such sites, then the process is broken and needs to be fixed.

Tell that to Justin Bieber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_bieber). He sang for free and got a multi-million dollar contract.

How is a process "broken" if it works?

There are others are well.

Journey found their lead singer Arnel Pineda through YouTube. He was on his own, forced to make his own way after his mother died and his father was bankrupted paying her medical bills. Journey saw his copyright-violating videos and realized how well he could sing. Now Pineda will never have to worry about paying medical bills again. (See his story here (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1815257,00.html).)

Here's some more:
15 Aspiring Musicians Who Found Fame Through YouTube (http://mashable.com/2011/01/23/found-fame-youtube/)

These are real, flesh-and-blood people whose lives have been made better. Look in their faces and declare that they'd be better off without YouTube. It's simply not true.

BTW, there have been musicians playing for free in order to get exposure for a heck of a long time. This didn't start with YouTube. Here's a few examples:

10 Musicians Who Got Their Start Playing in the Streets (http://newsonrelevantscience.blogspot.com/2012/02/10-musicians-who-got-their-start.html)

YouTube simply enables those people to reach a LOT bigger audience... as in world-wide.

In other words, YouTube took what was already happening - musicians playing free for exposure - and made it a lot more effective. That's supposed to be a bad thing?

[Topkat]

SODA, thank you for that! I have been saying all along that this is FREE ADVERTISING & FREE PUBLICITY for any artist! Yes, to a world wide audience!
Where else do you get that?? Getting a manager & to promote an artist cost a fortune!

[VAisForEagleLovers]

According to some article written about the richest drummers, Don Henley is worth $300 Million dollars, so he doesn't seem to be hurting any for this. I would think he would have something better to do with his time & money than make a huge issue over this. In the grand scheme of things, YES, IT"S VERY PETTY!

So it's OK to shoplift from Macy's but not the little Ma and Pa shop down the road because Macy's has a lot of money? I'm sorry, I don't get it from people on this board but I do from friends, we all like music a little too much to take this tack, but there are many more who don't, and they will not buy a CD or MP3 if they can listen to it on YouTube for free. Why buy the cow if the milk is free? And what if Don is fighting for the up and coming musician that has a net worth of $1500 and not millions?

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Tell that to Justin Bieber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_bieber). He sang for free and got a multi-million dollar contract.

How is a process "broken" if it works?

There are others are well.

Journey found their lead singer Arnel Pineda through YouTube. He was on his own, forced to make his own way after his mother died and his father was bankrupted paying her medical bills. Journey saw his copyright-violating videos and realized how well he could sing. Now Pineda will never have to worry about paying medical bills again. (See his story here (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1815257,00.html).)

Here's some more:
15 Aspiring Musicians Who Found Fame Through YouTube (http://mashable.com/2011/01/23/found-fame-youtube/)

These are real, flesh-and-blood people whose lives have been made better. Look in their faces and declare that they'd be better off without YouTube. It's simply not true.

BTW, there have been musicians playing for free in order to get exposure for a heck of a long time. This didn't start with YouTube. Here's a few examples:

10 Musicians Who Got Their Start Playing in the Streets (http://newsonrelevantscience.blogspot.com/2012/02/10-musicians-who-got-their-start.html)

YouTube simply enables those people to reach a LOT bigger audience... as in world-wide.

In other words, YouTube took what was already happening - musicians playing free for exposure - and made it a lot more effective. That's supposed to be a bad thing?

OK. I'll stop. You all win. Five people out of thousands of struggling musicians is a success story.

[sodascouts]

I think you mean 16, but at any rate, they were put forward as examples of a larger phenomenon, not as an exhaustive list. You know that.

I think examples and evidence are important to an informed argument. I'd like some examples of artists who can PROVE that they have been hurt by YouTube. Not hypothetically, not speculatively, not theoretically. I'd like to see some hard, direct proof.

Incidentally, the percentage of success stories to those attempting to break into the music business has ALWAYS been low. Some people act like before YouTube, all a talented person had to do was show up to a record company office and fortune and fame would follow. There were tons of people who the record companies turned away. Now those people have alternative means to reach the masses and are no longer blocked by a corporate "gatekeeper." Again, that's a bad thing?

[Topkat]

So it's OK to shoplift from Macy's but not the little Ma and Pa shop down the road because Macy's has a lot of money? I'm sorry, I don't get it from people on this board but I do from friends, we all like music a little too much to take this tack, but there are many more who don't, and they will not buy a CD or MP3 if they can listen to it on YouTube for free. Why buy the cow if the milk is free? And what if Don is fighting for the up and coming musician that has a net worth of $1500 and not millions?

VA, I'm not saying it's OK to steal. Besides, you are never going to get an entire CD on YouTube. If you get 1 or 2 songs off an album, that's a lot. All I'm saying is that any musician on YouTube is getting Free World Wide Exposure! That is certainly worth something, isn't it? Many people discover an artist on YouTube, & then continue to support them by going to see a live performance or buying something! I don't know anyone that gets ALL their music from YouTube, the quality is just not as good. As Soda pointed out......Many people have been discovered on YouTube & have gone on to make millions.

[sodascouts]

SODA, thank you for that! I have been saying all along that this is FREE ADVERTISING & FREE PUBLICITY for any artist! Yes, to a world wide audience!
Where else do you get that?? Getting a manager & to promote an artist cost a fortune!

Not to mention that even if you were one of the very few to get a record contract, the corporation would do their best to screw you over.

Don Henley initially formed the Recording Arts Coalition to address the fact that the record companies were ripping musicians off. These companies weren't the musician's kindly friends, always looking out to help them! Even Asylum, which was started under the concept that everyone at the top was the musician's buddy, got to a point where Don Henley was suing its founder David Geffen in order to get out of his contract. (See that story here (http://articles.latimes.com/1993-04-29/entertainment/ca-29099_1_david-geffen)).

I can't summon up too many tears that the reign of the record company is threatened by sites like YouTube.

The Eagles are successful enough to eliminate the record company and form their own. They've largely cut them out of the profits. YouTube does the same for the people who can't afford to buy their way out, or were never let in at all.

[sodascouts]

VA, I'm not saying it's OK to steal. Besides, you are never going to get an entire CD on YouTube. If you get 1 or 2 songs off an album, that's a lot. All I'm saying is that any musician on YouTube is getting Free World Wide Exposure! That is certainly worth something, isn't it? Many people discover an artist on YouTube, & then continue to support them by going to see a live performance or buying something! I don't know anyone that gets ALL their music from YouTube, the quality is just not as good. As Soda pointed out......Many people have been discovered on YouTube & have gone on to make millions.

Well, truth be told, I have seen many albums on YouTube in their entirety, including albums by our guys. Even I can understand why they wouldn't be cool with that.

However, I think any potential revenue lost by people streaming the album via YouTube is offset by the fact that many people hear songs they like on YouTube and go out and buy the album, or get it off of iTunes. I know I've done this. I ask for friends to recommend songs, then I find them on YouTube to see if I like them enough to buy them.

With the demise of radio, how else are we supposed to hear these songs? I'm not going to buy a $15-$20 album blind, especially if I'm not familiar with the artist (admittedly, it's the new crowd, and not the successful old guard with established fanbases like the Eagles, who benefit the most from YouTube). Also, this way, we can hear deep tracks to help us make our decision whereas in the past, you could only hear the songs that were released to radio.

[Topkat]

I use YouTube to see performances of some of those old bands from the 70's. Guys that are no longer around to see live...Yeah the dead guys!!! We can't see Hendrix or Harrison or Stevie Ray Vaughn....so seeing their stuff on YouTube brings back the memory of them. I even see very young musicians commenting on these videos & recognizing their talent, even though they are long gone. They never had the opportunity to see them live, & never will, so they are discovering great talent from the past & are influenced & inspired by them. I think that's a good thing!

[sodascouts]

Well, I'm going to admit something. When we get to the point where people are putting entire albums on YouTube, it starts to feel wrong to me. I don't think I want to defend that behavior, yet if you take my argument to its logical conclusion, the behavior is justified because it benefits both me and the artist.

Still, it feels wrong, and I usually go with my gut on these things. I'll have to think about the ramifications of that to my argument and modify it accordingly. Now, I gotta go teach a class!

[sodascouts]

OK, after some consideration, I feel I've taken my argument too far and therefore I am going to backtrack. I'm sorry to confuse everyone, but I have to be intellectually honest here.

Should I promote the uploading of commercially available material to YouTube?

I have come to the decision that no, I should not.

While I know very well there is no hard proof that YouTube hurts musicians and there IS hard proof that it has helped some musicians (another one I thought of is Chris Brown (https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=103914&postcount=79)), there is a problem here:

There is also no hard proof that the loss of potential revenue from the streaming of commercially available material via YouTube is completely offset by the sales such streaming generates.

Therefore, if an artist does not believe that such an offset occurs, I cannot blame him or her for wanting to take the music down, nor can I in fairness resent it.

Thus, as much as it pains me, I discourage anyone from posting links to commercially available material on The Border unless there are special circumstances (for instance it's OK if the artist does not object to it.) Obviously, I will have to modify my own behavior in this regard, too, and I'm not looking forward to that because I took a great deal of pleasure and pride in making self-produced videos to Eagles songs, but I guess I have to suck it up and deal.


What about non-commercially available material?

My logic does not apply to non-commercially available material such as live, unreleased, and/or out-of-print music. I cannot conceive of any way this has any negative commercial effect at all - and people won't be able to hear it any other way. Therefore, I can in good conscience criticize the artist's decision to have such material taken down as unreasonable and unwise, regardless of whether or not the law is on their side.

In the case of the Eagles, though, I do discourage people from filming them because I don't want them distracted.


Is YouTube destroying the music industry? Should it be legislated/sued out of existence to protect copyright holders?

No, I do not believe YouTube is destroying the music industry - far from it - for reasons I gave in prior posts.

I certainly do not believe that YouTube should be brought down entirely because of potential abuses of copyright that take place on it. Even if one artist doesn't want his/her material on it, others should be allowed to upload theirs if they wish. As I said before, for many, it is a useful way of getting their music "out there."

Plus, YouTube serves other purposes as well, including political ones - which is why oppressive governments like Afghanistan (http://www.webpronews.com/youtube-blocked-in-afghanistan-following-violence-tied-to-anti-muslim-video-2012-09) and China (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/25/china-blocks-youtube) (which certainly has no qualms about copyright violation) block it. I don't want America to become a place where the government controls what I watch, no matter how "well-intentioned" such control is.

The artist can take down videos with his or her songs, but trying to take down YouTube entirely is going too far. If that means they have to take some time and trouble to police YouTube themselves, so be it. It's not really that arduous to hire some plebe to do searches on YouTube (like my friend Kendel), and hey, they're helping the economy by creating jobs, lol. More importantly, though, this approach keeps the issue to the entertainer's rights without treading on mine - assuming that no false copyright claims are made.

ETA: Since this discussion has gone beyond concert video, I'm moving the thread.

[Topkat]

Well, I'm going to admit something. When we get to the point where people are putting entire albums on YouTube, it starts to feel wrong to me. I don't think I want to defend that behavior, yet if you take my argument to its logical conclusion, the behavior is justified because it benefits both me and the artist.

Still, it feels wrong, and I usually go with my gut on these things. I'll have to think about the ramifications of that to my argument and modify it accordingly. Now, I gotta go teach a class!

Soda, nobody needs YouTube to copy an entire album, or cd. Many people make a copy from an original right from their computer & there is tons of software out there to make copies of cd's, dvd's or other media. YES, that is all wrong, but that stuff really is a whole other topic. It really doesn't fall under the topic of YouTube.

There are always people that are going to do this, but this has been going on long before YouTube even existed.

[TimothyBFan]

OK, after some consideration, I feel I've taken my argument too far and therefore I am going to backtrack. I'm sorry to confuse everyone, but I have to be intellectually honest here.


In my opinion, you did not take your argument too far and you were right on the mark, for the most part. And to be honest, I'm sorry you felt you had to backtrack. I only hope that you aren't backtracking because you felt you had to. If what you were posting is how you felt, there's no reason to backtrack.

And now I feel I should ask--- should we not be posting fan videos of live performances anymore? Do I have to stop and think every time I see something on YouTube and think to myself, "the Borderers would love this one"? I know how much I look forward to getting on the board after a concert, not only to see our member reviews and pictures but to also see any videos that we find on YouTube. I want to be clear and I don't want to do anything to rock the boat or burden a moderator who feels that they have to take it down.

I've made my opinion more than obvious recently and in the past and I hold to those opinions. I think some of these artists/record companies/etc. have taken this to the extreme and the legislators would do better to work on less petty things.

I also truly believe that YouTube can be a very good way for new artist to get their talents out there and the examples you cited are wonderful incidences of the good that can come from it. As for the established artists who are continuously on the lookout for violators and have their lawyers on speed dial (Metallica, Eagles...)-- come on, is it really taking that much revenue out of your already well lined pockets? Bless the established artist that have embraced it including our very own Timothy & Joe.

[Freypower]

And now I feel I should ask--- should we not be posting fan videos of live performances anymore? Do I have to stop and think every time I see something on YouTube and think to myself, "the Borderers would love this one"? I know how much I look forward to getting on the board after a concert, not only to see our member reviews and pictures but to also see any videos that we find on YouTube. I want to be clear and I don't want to do anything to rock the boat or burden a moderator who feels that they have to take it down.



I already asked that question.

[sodascouts]

I have no problem with people posting links to live videos.

TBF, I didn't feel I had to backtrack because of some kind of external pressure - as I said, it felt wrong to defend uploading songs that were commercially available in light of the fact that some people were uploading entire albums. Therefore, I re-evaluated my position.

[TimothyBFan]

I have no problem with people posting links to live videos.

TBF, I didn't feel I had to backtrack because of some kind of external pressure - as I said, it felt wrong to defend uploading songs that were commercially available in light of the fact that some people were uploading entire albums. Therefore, I re-evaluated my position.

Glad to hear that!! Stay true to your convictions!!! :thumbsup:

[sodascouts]

Soda, nobody needs YouTube to copy an entire album, or cd. Many people make a copy from an original right from their computer & there is tons of software out there to make copies of cd's, dvd's or other media. YES, that is all wrong, but that stuff really is a whole other topic. It really doesn't fall under the topic of YouTube.

There are always people that are going to do this, but this has been going on long before YouTube even existed.

You're absolutely right that illegitimate copying existed before YouTube and exists outside of YouTube. Additionally, anyone who believes the destruction of YouTube will magically fix this problem is kidding themselves.

I know of many sites - which I choose not to use - where I can get just about any album I want for free in the form of audio files. No ripping is required. Nobody needs YouTube to make illegal copies. The destruction of Napster didn't destroy P2P - it just went underground. The best P2P sites aren't even crawled by external search engines, which is why the idea of search engine control as a means to stop piracy is laughable... but that's another matter.

At any rate, it is undeniable that this problem also takes place on YouTube. The reality is that entire albums are indeed uploaded and so it's relevant to the discussion as part of the overall YouTube issue - and it's the part that many artists are most concerned by.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Nancy, I applaude you for re-evaluating this. As I said, I personally enjoy watching some things on YouTube and think it's overall a good thing. However, I still firmly believe that an artist should always have the right to control the use of their intellectual property. As much as we in the general public may enjoy watching or listening to an artist, we do not have any entitlement to their property.

I believe this is more about principle than money. Ask yourself - How would you like it if someone helps themself to something you own without asking you? Speaking for myself - call me whatever you want ... but, no, you can't borrow my earrings or car without my permission. :wink:

[StephUK]

My thinking is that the Copyrighting Laws were originally made to protect not only the owner of the material, be it music, books etc but also to protect the public from being ripped off e.g. when inferior copies of original cd are made and packaged identically to the original and the public are deceived into thinking they are buying an original(legal) copy.

There are many 'exemptions' to Copyright Laws:-

Libraries can lend out books - people will borrow the book instead of buying it = lost revenue for the author.

Colleges etc can photocopy limited excerpts from text books to hand out to students = less text books sold.

Performing Rights - under this bands can perform other artists' songs in public and charge a fee for their performance. If someone does a bad version of an Eagles song it could harm the Eagles reputation, but they wouldn't even know about it.
Considering this point, I am confused about mention in an earlier post on this thread about the Eagles wanting videos of cover versions of their songs taken down - if the person has paid his dues under Performing Rights then wouldn't they be allowed to post them? (maybe someone knows more about this than I do?)

I don't know very much about law, but I think in the UK the judge would have to uphold the Copyright Laws and would probably issue a fine for breaking them, but the chances of getting any compensation would depend on proving 'significant' financial loss or loss of reputation as a direct result of the action - difficult to prove in this economic climate.

I don't know what legal action the Eagles are planning to take;
- are they trying to prevent ALL live show videos from being posted on YouTube, or just their own?
- are they wanting to prosecute YouTube for allowing live show videos to be posted?
- are they seeking compensation from YouTube?

and do they have the support of the many other artists who have videos posted on YouTube?


P.S. I'm enjoying reading all the posts in this thread. What an deep-thinking lot you all are! It also goes to show that this is a complicated subject which provokes a lot of response. It's certainly made me think a bit more about my initials view on the subject.

[Glennsallnighter]

I don't know what the UK laws on copyright are. I know over here schools and colleges pay a fee to some copyright association which allows them limited or unlimited (depending on how much you pay) access to photocopying materials. So as teachers we are covered under that. IRMA (The Irish Music Recording Association) levy shops/restaurants etc who wish to play radio/cds for the listening pleasure of their customers. So in that way royalties go to the artists.

[Henley Honey]

Nancy, I applaude you for re-evaluating this. As I said, I personally enjoy watching some things on YouTube and think it's overall a good thing. However, I still firmly believe that an artist should always have the right to control the use of their intellectual property. As much as we in the general public may enjoy watching or listening to an artist, we do not have any entitlement to their property.

I believe this is more about principle than money. Ask yourself - How would you like it if someone helps themself to something you own without asking you? Speaking for myself - call me whatever you want ... but, no, you can't borrow my earrings or car without my permission. :wink:


Thank you, Dreamer. You nailed it -- Very succinctly.
My thoughts exactly.

[EaglesKiwi]

My thinking is that the Copyrighting Laws were originally made to protect not only the owner of the material, be it music, books etc but also to protect the public from being ripped off e.g. when inferior copies of original cd are made and packaged identically to the original and the public are deceived into thinking they are buying an original(legal) copy.
Also, no matter how good the quality might be, I would be really upset if I had paid money thinking I was supporting the artist, only to find out it was a deception that lined somebody else's pocket...


Performing Rights - under this bands can perform other artists' songs in public and charge a fee for their performance. If someone does a bad version of an Eagles song it could harm the Eagles reputation, but they wouldn't even know about it.
Considering this point, I am confused about mention in an earlier post on this thread about the Eagles wanting videos of cover versions of their songs taken down - if the person has paid his dues under Performing Rights then wouldn't they be allowed to post them? (maybe someone knows more about this than I do?)

I think over here you pay a fee for the right/permission to perform a specific song, in a specific venue, on a specific date - so posting your performance as a "free for all" on You Tube would be outside that permission.

[Brooke]

Wow, I can't even keep up with reading all the posts in this thread! Too much life going on! It's all very interesting and I'm trying to take it all in!

All I know is I know I enjoy watching good videos and I wish the Eagles would put more of them out. If they don't want people to make bootlegs then they need to put them out themselves. I can't wait for the documentary to come out. I don't care for bad live ones on Yt. I have enjoyed getting to see some of the bands from the 70's that I never got to see back then due to living in the boondocks and being too poor to travel to concerts in the big city.

I do think it helps young artists getting started. I don't think it would hurt the rich ones. Their fan base wants to see them live whether they've seen them on a bootleg or not.

[Tiffanny Twisted]

I do have to agree with Brooke,
this has been an intresting thread.

I too wish they would put out more concert dvds.
Watching them wouldnt detaine me from going to concerts...It would encourage me. Hey I"ve seen EWF three times and watch their dvd "s over and over. I'd see them every chance I get ..they put on a great and entertaining show.
Same for the eagles.....

Just wish they would put out more quality stuff to watch.

tt:)

[Topkat]

There is no replacing the actual "live experience" of a concert, but the videos even if they aren't the best quality would make people want to see a live show.They have fans all over the world. Most people can't travel to a foreign country to see a concert, so everyone looks for some of a live show.

Waiting for the Eagles to put out something is like waiting FOREVER. I mean they rarely put anything out. What is the last thing they put out? Farewell1 tour DVD....How many years ago was that? I don't know...seems like ages ago..Now waiting for this 40th Anniversary tour & DVD...We have no clue as to when this will be happening. The few live shows that they have been doing, aside from the solo work, have been few & far between, so even getting to see small glimpses of them, is a treat for the fans. They need to chill out on this YouTube stuff. It's not hurting them one bit. Just MHO.

[sodascouts]

Farewell 1 came out in 2005 - seven years ago now. We all hoped for a LROOE concert DVD, but it appears that's not happening. However, I believe Glenn said there will be some footage from LROOE shows on the upcoming Eagles documentary.

I can't wait!

[sodascouts]

I don't know what legal action the Eagles are planning to take;
- are they trying to prevent ALL live show videos from being posted on YouTube, or just their own?
- are they wanting to prosecute YouTube for allowing live show videos to be posted?
- are they seeking compensation from YouTube?

and do they have the support of the many other artists who have videos posted on YouTube?


As far as I know, the Eagles are currently only actively taking down their own material or material that is closely related to them.

There are certainly many artists who share their viewpoint - I daresay most of the established "old school" musicians do - but I couldn't give you a percentile. There are also many artists who have no opposition to YouTube, or even actively use it for self-promotion. The majority of these are younger and less established. As Henley has communicated, the Eagles don't need any additional exposure. Other artists are not so lucky.

Don Henley's personal opinion on YouTube is universally condemning. His viewpoint is in part expressed here (http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/08/henley-devore-settle-lawsuit-henley.html):

Henley reserved particularly ire for YouTube, which he described as a “fence” for stolen intellectual property. “YouTube is one of the biggest violators [of] copyright laws in the world,” he said. “A tremendous amount of the content on YouTube is a copyright violation.... I’m not a fan of YouTube at all for their part in aiding and abetting copyright violations.”
In another article (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/don-henley-airs-conservative-views-on-copyright-law-20100825), Henley states, "Congress should amend the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), eliminating or dramatically limiting the Safe Harbor provisions so that ISPs [Internet service providers] and websites such as YouTube, MySpace and Facebook have legal liability for hosting infringing content."

(Note: the "Safe Harbor" provision to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects sites from being liable for content uploaded by third parties. Therefore, the DMCA protects YouTube from being liable for copyright-infringing videos uploaded by its users - and protects other online venues such as blogs and message boards from being liable for posts made by their users.)

Such legislation would bring YouTube to its knees and deal harsh blows to MySpace and Facebook as well, who would have to start banning users right and left. Otherwise, MySpace and Facebook would be liable for any users uploading videos, photos, graphics, extended quotations of articles or books... anything posted that's not original content, in the public domain, or used by permission.

Additionally, the inclusion of ISPs, which we all use to access the internet, means persecution of private citizens could take place across the board on an unprecedented scale.

The other active Eagles all have official YouTube channels, so obviously they understand that it can be used as an asset. However, it should be noted that both Schmit and Frey have expressed displeasure at live footage getting put on YouTube.

Furthermore, Frey's Red Cloud Music has taken down some of his material, so the removal of Eagles material has expanded beyond the infamous Cass County Music purges initiated by Henley.

As far as I know, Schmit has never taken down material from YouTube despite his dismay at being filmed.

Walsh used to have his lawyers taking down material but lately, he seems to have a much more lenient attitude, even linking to a copyright-violating fanvid from his official site and praising its creativity.

[Topkat]

Sodascouts
There are certainly many artists who share their viewpoint - I daresay most of the established "old school" musicians do - but I couldn't give you a percentile. There are also many artists who have no opposition to YouTube, or even actively use it for self-promotion. The majority of these are younger and less established. As Henley has communicated, the Eagles don't need any additional exposure. Other artists are not so lucky.


I haven't heard of anyone else protesting YouTube besides Don Henley & maybe to a lesser degree Glenn. If all the other active Eagles have official YouTube channels, they don't seem to be supporting Don on this. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? If the members of his own band aren't even behind him, isn't he fighting this pretty much alone? Haven't heard of any "old school" musicians fighting it either. In fact even many "old School" musicians love YouTube. Take Paul McCartney for example. Does he need any exposure?...No, don't think so. What about Aerosmith, The Rolling Stones, the Who? None of them seem to have a problem with it. These are all well established "old school" rockers.

As for young acts, most of the biggest & well established rock, pop & country acts today all seem to be supportive of YouTube, & many of them don't need the exposure either. I don't see any of them taking down videos due to the copyright laws.

Don is gonna do what he wants to do, & there's no stopping him. If he goes as for as getting the laws changed, kudos to him, but a lot of people, (including the musicians) are not gonna be happy!

[sodascouts]

Topkat, you make a good point that my generalities are not specifically supported in the passage you quote. I was hesitant to put that bit for that very reason, but I was trying to answer Steph's question and I was going by my own personal observations.

I do know for a fact that it's not just Don, Glenn, and entertainment conglomerates like Warner Bros. who are speaking out or taking videos down. Prince is another example and he takes things much further than Don (read more here (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9778087-7.html)). I'll try to think of a few more.

[sodascouts]

OK, here's some examples of both:

Some artists who have complained about YouTube besides those already mentioned:
Radiohead (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10193215-93.html)
Billy Bragg (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10193215-93.html)
Robbie Williams (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10193215-93.html)
Beth Nielsen Chapman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Nielsen_Chapman)
[Undisclosed country artist who had interns doing YouTube searches]

There are more; it's just hard to find names in the articles instead of phrases like "many musicians."

Some artists who have praised YouTube besides those already mentioned:
50 Cent (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/uponsun/2011/11/as_the_stop_online_piracy_act.php)
Shakira (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/uponsun/2011/11/as_the_stop_online_piracy_act.php)
OK Go (http://www.youtube.com/artist/ok_go)
Justin Timberlake (http://www.blackbookmag.com/movies/who-is-promoting-their-movie-best-ryan-gosling-or-justin-timberlake-1.24205)
Jay-Z (http://www.answers.com/topic/jay-z)
Usher (http://www.youtube.com/user/ushertv)
Lady GaGa (http://www.ladygaga.com/bornthiswayball/)
Trent Reznor / Nine Inch Nails (http://staticmultimedia.com/music/music-news/musicians-speak-out-against-sopa-and-pipa)
Toby Mac (http://tobymac.com/)
Joe Bonamassa (http://www.dpacnc.com/events/detail/joe-bonamassa)
Amanda Palmer (http://staticmultimedia.com/music/music-news/musicians-speak-out-against-sopa-and-pipa)
Gotye (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/gotye-rises-up-from-down-under-20120214)
Alexa Goddard (http://alexagoddard.com/)
Austin Mahone (http://www.etonline.com/music/125027_Meet_Austin_Mahone_Pop_Music_s_Next_Big_Thi ng/)
Christine Grimmie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Grimmie)
Esmee Denters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esm%C3%A9e_Denters)
Greyson Chance (http://www.greyson-official.com/)
Jack Conte (http://www.youtube.com/user/jackcontemusic)
Jamie Grace (http://www.jamiegrace.com/)
Sara Niemietz (http://www.saraniemietz.com/)

Yeah, these are just a few. A lot of people aren't that vocal about it one way or the other, and I don't have time to do exhaustive searches. Suffice it to say that I still believe my generalization is an accurate one despite the inevitable exceptions, and that age and/or level of success do play a role in one's perception of YouTube. I'm not saying it's a hard-line divide, though. It's obviously not.

[Topkat]

Soda, it doesn't shock me that a few artists are fighting YouTube & are against it. As for Prince, well, he doesn't seem to have his videos taken down because there is plenty of Prince on YouTube. That article was from 2007, but aside from that, he seemed to be protesting the bootleg stuff that is on Ebay that people are selling.

But how do you explain that Glenn has a YouTube video on his Official Site? There is a YouTube video clearly featured on his site of "The Shadow of Your Smile".
Joe also has many YouTube videos linked to his site. Timothy doesn't seem to have YouTube videos connected to his site.
How does this show support for Don? Isn't this hypocritical? If Glenn is also having videos removed, then features one on his own website, WTH? I don't get that at all.

[sodascouts]

I don't find it at all hypocritical for an artist to have an official YouTube channel, yet take down videos uploaded by others.

The artist gets to control what goes on the official YouTube channel, and can post purchase links to his/her songs, links to his/her official site, promotional ads, etc. That doesn't happen when someone else uploads a video. Plus, if a video is on the official channel yet someone else has uploaded it unofficially, the artist's official video is competing for hits against the unofficial version! I can see why the artist would want to take those videos down.


How does this show support for Don?

While the rest of the Eagles obviously support Henley on some aspects of this matter as indicated by verbal complaints/video removals, they are not necessarily 100% in agreement with every single thing he says about YouTube, the DMCA, SOPA/PROTECT-IP etc. They have yet to voice opinions on legislation.

[Topkat]

I see your point, but I thought they were against YouTube in general, and want to shut it down. I see they don't mind the free promotion on their own official videos, but that still allows for someone to copy the music for their Ipod without buying it, so I still don't get it! :eyebrow:
Having an official video doesn't stop the coping, & the stealing of the music, which they are fighting, so I do see it as hypocritical.

[sodascouts]

As for Prince, well, he doesn't seem to have his videos taken down because there is plenty of Prince on YouTube. That article was from 2007, but aside from that, he seemed to be protesting the bootleg stuff that is on Ebay that people are selling.

I did a search for Prince on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=prince&oq=prince&gs_l=youtube.3..0l10.58107.58693.0.58857.6.5.0.1.1 .1.134.581.1j4.5.0...0.0...1ac.1.p5fC2e_Q6vA) and I don't see a lot of his stuff up at all. Most of what comes up are interviews and songs by other people that he appears on. Oh, you can find his music on there, too, but not nearly to the extent of some other artists.

In fact, according to this recent August 2012 article (http://www.drfunkenberry.com/2012/08/16/questlove-frustrated-over-princes-youtube-stance-his-remasters-legacy/), Prince still regularly takes videos down off of YouTube. His efforts simply aren't 100% effective because logistically, unless you hire someone to do daily searches, it's hard to catch them all - and even when you do, people just upload them again. That's why Henley wants to target the site itself. He has the same problem (you can find some of his songs on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=don+henley&oq=don+henley&gs_l=youtube.3..0l10.135.260.0.646.3.3.0.0.0.0.167 .394.0j3.3.0...0.0...1ac.1.ahrmK2rSvA0), too).


I thought they were against YouTube in general, and want to shut it down.

Henley's the one who's spoken out against YouTube in general, not the entire band. The entire band has complained about it as it pertains to unauthorized live videos of their performances, and as I said before, Frey and Walsh have taken down some videos of released music as well. However, if the rest of the band feels as negatively as Henley does about YouTube in the sense that they believe the government should move against the entire site, they haven't said so.


I see they don't mind the free promotion on their own official videos, but that still allows for someone to copy the music for their Ipod without buying it, so I still don't get it! :eyebrow:
Having an official video doesn't stop the coping, & the stealing of the music, which they are fighting, so I do see it as hypocritical.

Again, don't lump all the Eagles together. In accordance with his vehement anti-YouTube stance, Henley does NOT have an official channel nor does he promote himself using that site (although his record company has posted the videos he made to promote Inside Job). You cannot accuse him of hypocrisy on that score.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I hate to say it, but it seems to me that we are beating the proverbial dead horse to death here.


I see your point, but I thought they were against YouTube in general, and want to shut it down. I see they don't mind the free promotion on their own official videos, but that still allows for someone to copy the music for their Ipod without buying it, so I still don't get it! :eyebrow:
Having an official video doesn't stop the coping, & the stealing of the music, which they are fighting, so I do see it as hypocritical.

I don't recall anyone saying that the band is on a mission to take down YouTube. As we've said, three of them have their own YouTube channels. TK - you assume that the this is all about money, and you have a right to your opinion, but you have no first hand knowledge of this. I happen to believe it's more about principle than money. As Don said in AC - if they want to be on YouTube, then they will put up their own stuff. The point is that the band wants to control the use of their property because it belongs to them - it is their property to do with what they want. I don't see that as being hypocritical or unreasonable of them at all.

[Topkat]

Inside Job[/I]). You cannot accuse him of hypocrisy on that score.

I wasn't talking about Henley. I knew that he wouldn't have any YouTube videos on his site, but as I mentioned, Glenn does. As I understood it, Glenn was also anti-YouTube, and has YouTube videos taken down. His site features a YouTube version of The Shadow of Your Smile. If someone wanted to copy the song, wouldn't they use Glenn's higher quality version, rather than some crummy version of the song? Probably.

VA, I don't really assume it is all about the money. That's part of it, but it's more the principle that Don stands by so strongly. I don't necessarily think that they are all in full agreement of it, but it effects all of them to a degree, when it comes to the band videos.

When I looked at the official Eagles website, they have 2 MySpace videos on there. Is there much difference between YouTube & My Space? Oh except that nobody uses My Space anymore?

[Freypower]

I wasn't talking about Henley. I knew that he wouldn't have any YouTube videos on his site, but as I mentioned, Glenn does. As I understood it, Glenn was also anti-YouTube, and has YouTube videos taken down. His site features a YouTube version of The Shadow of Your Smile. If someone wanted to copy the song, wouldn't they use Glenn's higher quality version, rather than some crummy version of the song? Probably.

VA, I don't really assume it is all about the money. That's part of it, but it's more the principle that Don stands by so strongly. I don't necessarily think that they are all in full agreement of it, but it effects all of them to a degree, when it comes to the band videos.

When I looked at the official Eagles website, they have 2 MySpace videos on there. Is there much difference between YouTube & My Space? Oh except that nobody uses My Space anymore?

I don't recall Glenn ever making any anti You Tube comments until this recent 'stop filming' statement in AC, and that is a request to stop filming, not a condemnation of YouTube.

There is a Glenn Frey channel on YouTube to which I subscribe.

[Tiffanny Twisted]

I hate to say it, but it seems to me that we are beating the proverbial dead horse to death here.



I don't recall anyone saying that the band is on a mission to take down YouTube. As we've said, three of them have their own YouTube channels. TK - you assume that the this is all about money, and you have a right to your opinion, but you have no first hand knowledge of this. I happen to believe it's more about principle than money. As Don said in AC - if they want to be on YouTube, then they will put up their own stuff. The point is that the band wants to control the use of their property because it belongs to them - it is their property to do with what they want. I don't see that as being hypocritical or unreasonable of them at all.

I agree "It is their property to do with what they want"


The point of the my space or whatever on their web site, is just that. Their website and they control what is on it.

And if I was the performer on stage, I would not want someone taping me for themselfs or others and distracting me and others round them.

[sodascouts]

I don't recall Glenn ever making any anti You Tube comments until this recent 'stop filming' statement in AC, and that is a request to stop filming, not a condemnation of YouTube.

There is a Glenn Frey channel on YouTube to which I subscribe.

He has not make the kind of anti-YouTube statements Henley has by any means. He has asked people to stop filming and he has quietly taken some videos off of YouTube - but as I said before, I see no hypocrisy in taking material down posted by other people while maintaining your own official channel, be it on YouTube or MySpace. It's the straightforward logic of "I -and only I - should be able to post my own stuff."

And we know for a fact he's made use of YouTube for song ideas at least twice, lest we forget!

[Tiffanny Twisted]

Yes , Soda you are right.

[EaglesKiwi]

Don has seen first-hand his work taken and used for somebody else's purposes (a politician re-writing the lyrics)...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/chuck-devore-apologizes-don-henley-64139
... I think the lack of control on HOW a musician's work is used is a big part of his objection to YouTube. Who would want to see their music used as the soundtrack to a home porno posted on YouTube? Or a homophobic/racist movie clip? Or something even nastier?

[zeldabjr]

Don has seen first-hand his work taken and used for somebody else's purposes (a politician re-writing the lyrics)...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/chuck-devore-apologizes-don-henley-64139
... I think the lack of control on HOW a musician's work is used is a big part of his objection to YouTube. Who would want to see their music used as the soundtrack to a home porno posted on YouTube? Or a homophobic/racist movie clip? Or something even nastier?

obviously that politician didn't know who he was messing with when he started messing with Don Henley songs!!!:hilarious:...I'm with you Don on this one.

[Topkat]

I can certainly see why using a song for a political campaign is not legal. That guy is an idiot to think he can get away with that & they had the right to sue.

Pornography is forbidden on YouTube & will be removed by TY immediately, so is racist & homophobic propaganda..

I don't see how anyone can have complete control over what is on YT. I think they do make efforts to take down inappropriate videos. When you put up a YouTube video, you have to agree that you have the copyrights to the material posted, but obviously people lie about that when they post videos. If you are caught in violation of this, they take down your YouTube account.

[EaglesKiwi]

I can certainly see why using a song for a political campaign is not legal. That guy is an idiot to think he can get away with that & they had the right to sue.

Pornography is forbidden on YouTube & will be removed by TY immediately, so is racist & homophobic propaganda..

I don't see how anyone can have complete control over what is on YT. I think they do make efforts to take down inappropriate videos. When you put up a YouTube video, you have to agree that you have the copyrights to the material posted, but obviously people lie about that when they post videos. If you are caught in violation of this, they take down your YouTube account.
Valid point, but I'm sure there are still many other ways music could be used in ways the copyright holder is uncomfortable with - if they don't object to their song being used for somebody's pretty video clip, how long until it's used for something else... and so on. (And of course there will be other sites that don't take the icky stuff down).

[Tiffanny Twisted]

Don has seen first-hand his work taken and used for somebody else's purposes (a politician re-writing the lyrics)...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/chuck-devore-apologizes-don-henley-64139
... I think the lack of control on HOW a musician's work is used is a big part of his objection to YouTube. Who would want to see their music used as the soundtrack to a home porno posted on YouTube? Or a homophobic/racist movie clip? Or something even nastier?
Ok, heres the issue.
None of these artisits wrote songs to be used in this manner.
I mean come on" running on empty": was not written to be a political song.
'Neither was "bOys of summer" or "ALl she wants to do is dance".
The fact that this guy or any other guy would apply these songs to their campagnes is wrong.
I am glad Henley won and glad he had to apoligize.
Its like no one rights gingles for commercials any more ...they just take songs written for others enjoyment and apply it to commerical products.

I mean do you really think lennon and mccartney wrote "Help" to be a gingle for HHGregg company????

Glad dh won :computer:

[Topkat]

Ok, heres the issue.
None of these artisits wrote songs to be used in this manner.
I mean come on" running on empty": was not written to be a political song.
'Neither was "bOys of summer" or "ALl she wants to do is dance".
The fact that this guy or any other guy would apply these songs to their campagnes is wrong.
I am glad Henley won and glad he had to apoligize.
Its like no one rights gingles for commercials any more ...they just take songs written for others enjoyment and apply it to commerical products.

I mean do you really think lennon and mccartney wrote "Help" to be a gingle for HHGregg company????

Glad dh won :computer:

Well, if a song is used for a commercial or for a tv show (like all the Who songs used for CSI shows) they pay for the use of the song. Pete Townshend said that he is paid every time CSI is aired on tv. Same thing with a commercial. Artists are paid for each time song is aired. There is a big difference because the songs are used with permission & they pay for the use of the song.

A political candidate can use a song if they request permission & pay for it. For example, Bill Clinton used Fleetwood Mac song "Don't Stop" for his campaign, but got permission & paid for it. That is all legal.

There are always going to be illegal uses of songs & when an artist finds out about it, they usually sue & win.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

There are always going to be illegal uses of songs & when an artist finds out about it, they usually sue & win.

True - which is exactly the reason that some artists try to control the use of their songs on places like YouTube without going to court.

I guess we've come full circle on this again. If anyone is interested, here is an old thread on the Henley vs. DeVore lawsuit ...

https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1919

[StephUK]

I notice that it's usually only the audio track that gets removed from Eagles YouTube live videos. I guess this is because it's only the audio that is subject to copyright. The 'images' part of the video presumably 'belongs'(without copyright) to the person who filmed it - just as photos do.
Sometimes I watch them even when the audio has been removed, just to get a feel for the show - am I the only one who does this?

[zeldabjr]

I notice that it's usually only the audio track that gets removed from Eagles YouTube live videos. I guess this is because it's only the audio that is subject to copyright. The 'images' part of the video presumably 'belongs'(without copyright) to the person who filmed it - just as photos do.
Sometimes I watch them even when the audio has been removed, just to get a feel for the show - am I the only one who does this?

I've never noticed any videos without the audio...I'll have to go look!...sometimes I'm not very observant:laugh:

[Topkat]

I've never noticed any videos without the audio...I'll have to go look!...sometimes I'm not very observant:laugh:

There are a few. Most of the videos are taken down, so you don't really know how many are removed. If you save them in your favorite videos on your YT channel, you will see how many have actually been removed when you go back to look at them again...and they're GONE! Trust me, a lot are taken down.

I hate the videos with no sound...That just totally SUCKS :-x

[Freypower]

I notice that it's usually only the audio track that gets removed from Eagles YouTube live videos. I guess this is because it's only the audio that is subject to copyright. The 'images' part of the video presumably 'belongs'(without copyright) to the person who filmed it - just as photos do.
Sometimes I watch them even when the audio has been removed, just to get a feel for the show - am I the only one who does this?

I only watch them if I think there might be closeups & then it tends to depend on which song it is.