Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...

Ugh! I just received and email stating that I have violated the copyrights of Cass Country in my Eagles: History and Critiques series and youtube has taken down the entire series and given me a second "strike" against my youtube account -- the first strike was a VERY poor quality, 30 second cell phone video of "Boys of Summer" from the Eagles Milwaukee concert in September.

So now my whole series, which had a total over 60,000 views on youtube has been blocked. And I do not believe it will be coming back. Now, I know I technically violated copyright, but isn't there a "fair use" law that enables me to use video and audio for a review like mine? Either way, I've heard that Henley's publisher is doing some sort of crackdown and my videos haven't been the only ones hit. I imagine this is what happens when he isn't busy with the Eagles...

Well, I didn't put months of work into that series just so they could delete it. I'll be reposting the videos eventually at Dailymotion (where the Full length Part VII video currently is) and maybe blip. Otherwise, I believe I have found a glitch -- if you click "play" on the embedded videos on my introduction thread, it seems you can still watch them. It is probably only a matter of time before that stops working too.

Anyone else having similar problems?

Sorry Rambo but they are all gone or I just can't get them to work

Youtube Sucks when they take down good videos.

It's Cass County Music, Don's publshing company,that wanted them taken down. You cannnot blame YouTube for complying. I notice that Red Cloud Music doesn't seem bothered.

I blame The company that wanted them taken down. How do they expect people to listen to their artists if they don't want their videos on Youtube?

Yes, EL, but that isn't what you said. You said 'YouTube sucks when they take down videos' as if it were YouTube's fault.

And it is Don's company that we are talking about here. Nobody else's.

If Youtube wanted to, they'd refuse to Pull videos.

ETA: It doesn't matter whose company it is. It is horse manure either way

And be threatened with a massive lawsuit?

It'd be worth it to me. No one wants to buy a CD Without first listening to the songs, and they can't do it without Youtube

And how many of the songs on Expando are on YouTube? Precisely none.

If I want a CD I don't need to see a video to decide that I want it. This was the case both for Expando and the new Knopfler album. I didn't even look to see if there were any new Knopfler videos on YouTube before I ordered it (and I still haven't looked). If you like an artist enough, you don't need YouTube. I am older than you - I am from the era when videos were not necessary for you to decide whether or not you liked a song or wanted to buy an album.

When I buy a CD, most of the excitement comes from not knowing 90% of the songs on that album. It's something to take home and relish - hearing new songs for the very first time, and the anticipation of discovering (if I'm lucky) some songs that might have a big impact upon my life. Songs that might make me think, or stay with me for years, helping me through the bad times, or gearing me up for the good ones. Youtube has many great uses, but I certainly don't need to hear an album before I buy the CD, or watch a film before I purchase the DVD. The mystery of what lies within the cover is the best part. (If I didn't think this way, I'd never have bought Hell Freezes Over on a whim, because I'd heard Take It To The Limit and decided I might like the Eagles! Thank goodness I took the 'risk'.)

Sorry that your videos have been taken down, Rambo, but like FP, I'm not surprised that youtube complied immediately with Cass County Music!

Guess I am in the minority that want to Listen before I buy.

EL, I know what you're saying and I understand that approach. It's entirely logical. I would perhaps feel that way if I were discussing an artist I was unfamiliar with. But for people I know and trust, I don't need to see a video first.

Going back to when The Long Run came out, I was at university in Canberra and had no access to a TV. I didn't see the videos for TLR, ICTYW and ITC until about 6 months afterwards (as for my favourite song on that album, unbelievably of course there was no video for it at all). As for the Hotel California video I did not see that until November 1978 - only two years after it was released. I know that times have changed and people now expect immediate satisfaction. Perhaps I should be delving more into YouTube to familiarise myself with new songs - but it is not what I am used to doing.

An interesting conflict pointed out by Freypower and Eaglelady. I'm in between the two extremes concerning whether or not I want a video or whatever.

With a group that I am familiar with such as the Eagles, I don't need no preview to determine whether or not to buy. I'd buy it even if I never listened to it just so I could keep a collection going.

But with a new group or Artist, I want to HEAR something before I invest. Thankfully, just about all of the ones that I've had questions about, I've found on MySpace or Facebook with plenty of previews of their music. I speak specifically of Dilana's new "Insideout" and The Band of Heathen's "One Foot In The Ether".

Now y'all know I love Dilana, but I'm really crazy about only one song on her new album that I'm interested in, but because of that one song, I'll probably buy the CD. Or at least download it from iTunes or Amazon.

The Band Of Heathen's, well dang...there isn't a song on that album that I don't like. They had like 5 or 6 of them posted on their site and believe me, that was more than enough for me to know I had to have that CD.

As for Henley and his cow-patty record company, If he want's to prevent people from listening to his music...I recon it's his right or the "right" of the company that he owns to forbid any of it being published on the web. I think it's a BAD decision, but it is his decision. One has to respect that.

it all gets different when the song or performance is yours... meaning, you made it.

I own some land (an example here, bear with me)... I can't be there all the time and watch to make sure no one ever trespasses and goes hunting on the property..... But, if enough people trespass and they do it often enough and they go in the same places... eventually, I can lose my rights to the 'path'.

some states call it 'an apparent easement'. If you think what I'm saying is kind of nuts... My mom lost a pretty good chunk of property and ultimately had to pay not only legal bills to fight for her property (and lose) but she also had to make improvements so that folks could use the land for a road that bisected part of her land.

Copyright is like that. If you aren't super diligent about protecting it, you demonstrate by inaction that the property has no value and eventually you can lose all rights to it. Once it is 'valueless' anyone can bundle it and sell it.

We are all fans of the Eagles and clearly we value their ability and want to honor their art and defend their right to make their rightful wage from their work. I really would love if all the old concerts were released and we could all see all of the videos, but I understand that when they don't protect their rights... by law, they are still acting by not acting... and the result is---> lost revenues and loss of power to enforce copyright rule.

I love when I find some rare video... but, I also understand when it is taken down... we live in a weird time with lots of old law and lots of new technology.... I bear no ill will toward people protecting their property and since I have seen good folks lose their property... I have to admit that I lean toward folks who protect their rights... even when it inconveniences me.

I'll start by stating I understand the value and importance of copyright, and I do not support stealing music. Although, I must admit, I am guilty of doing it on occasion. Very rarely, actually. Usually if my local Walmart doesn't carry what I'm looking for -- (does anyone carry Joe Walsh's "Got Any Gum?" anymore?) -- and I don't want to wait to order it online. And I only take albums from artists that I have already purchased music from. (For instance, I bought 4 AC/DC albums and then torrented a few others.) It's not much of a justification, but it is a Hell of a lot better from what most of my peers do.

Anyway, my point being is that I would support a musician finding an official music video that he/she is saving for a DVD or an audio file off of one of his/her albums and demand it be taken down. An official release should be heard only on the radio or the album (or the artist's website), not on a website like youtube. However, when it comes to a live recording, I don't understand the outrage -- unless it is off of a professional DVD, the quality is most likely low and live versions don't sound the same as the studio versions, so people aren't going to choose that version over the official release. Also, except for the VERY FEW people who rip mp3s from youtube, no one moves music from youtube onto their ipod or music collection and chooses not to buy the official release. So I guess my point is that I feel that "official" releases (studio albums, live albums, concert DVDs, etc) should definitely be protected and taken off sites like youtube, but bootlegs or other unofficial live recordings should be left alone, because at the end of the day, they just end up being free advertising.

Now, when it comes to review series like mine, there should be (and I believe there is) a Fair Use law that enables me to use small snippets of official releases for the purpose of review and commentary (or satire). This is certainly not stealing music -- it is simply being used to contextualize a conversation about the music itself.

Well that's my rant... And it is all just opinion, but that's where I stand. But then again, I'm biased as Hell.

We all make our choices.

The law is designed to fit all when we are all decidedly different and the way we approach the world is different.

I think if you step back from your previous post for a couple of days and then come back and read it as dispassionately as possible, you'll see how arbitrary it is and how much rationalization exists there.

Analogies tend to clog up getting to the truth (and I'm totally guilty of using them trying to shed light quickly and simply only to discover the confuse the issue.)

If you genuinely think that what you are/were doing is within the law, you can set up your own website and create an entire review site... then post pointers to it from youtube. Folks do it all the time. Then you control (and accept) the responsibility for the content.

You make some interesting points about video quality etc... If I could get my hands on some specific shows from an era where the quality was lower and there were some other problems... but, I could at least see them... I'd pay a good sum for it...

If you've heard stephen stills 'roll tape' it has tons of problems... but has sold really well because there is an audience for that material... the viewership of your youtube site shows that there is an audience for what you are doing... is it the commentary? the content? a combination?

Youtube listens to the rightful owner of the material and in order to continue their business, they pull it. Maybe if you became the purveyor of the material, the problem would go away? At this point, youtube has liability, the publisher has responsibility (legal/business) to the artist, you have very little, to none. When that responsibility and liability gets spread evenly across the folks involved... then I think I'd lean to your side.

I can see both sides regarding recorded material - if your entire album is available to stream online, why would people want to buy it? I get why a musician would want to pull that. However, in the case of Henley and the Eagles, I daresay the majority of their demographic does not know how to download streaming videos from YouTube, then covert those videos to audio in order to burn them to CDs. Still, as I said, I understand the logic.

I can understand why Henley would pull material from Hell Freezes Over and Farewell 1, because if people can see it for free, why would they buy it? That could hit him in the wallet. Bizarrely, however, HFO and F1 material has been left alone, while fan vids have been pulled. What's the logic there?

I don't get why Henley pulls down live material, unless he fears it will affect ticket sales to his shows, but I don't think that's very rational when the quality is so poor. Poor quality live recordings certainly would not prevent a person from buying the CD. Quite the opposite.

I don't understand the pulling of MTV videos that he released to television in order to promote his albums. Wasn't the whole point of those videos to allow people to hear the song so that they would buy the album? Nobody had to pay to watch MTV. What's the difference?

I don't understand the pulling of appearances on television programs that he doesn't even have the distribution rights to. Apparently he disapproves just as strongly of television appearance uploads as he does of live uploads, though. Both are equally offensive.

I certainly don't understand the pulling of videos of people strumming Hotel California in their living room (like here). That's the kind of thing that makes me shake my head because I cannot perceive ANY benefit to him whatsoever of being THAT heavy-handed. In fact, I have rarely seen any musicians go THAT far.

Henley is self-sabotaging. He is too stuck in the past to realize that YouTube can be used as an asset. He views new media with fear and loathing and has closed his mind to its virtues.

Instead of building a raft so he can ride the waves, he lifts his fist to the ocean and tells himself he can block the rush of oncoming water if he just brings that fist down hard enough. So he winds up soggy, sputtering, and frustrated.

It doesn't have to be that way. YouTube could be his friend. I wish he could see that.

As far as we fans go, I think it's hypocritical to eagerly watch the videos while simultaneously condemning people for posting them.

In fact, speaking of hypocrisy, the idea for the Eagles' lead single How Long was a YouTube post of a 1973 performance of it...

Oh well. In the end we have to accept it when he pulls down the fanvids. We don't have to like it, but we can't do anything about it.

Bender, your perspective about having to be hyper-diligent on YouTube to keep the copyright from being diluted is interesting, but it seems that such dilution isn't really that severe -there are many artists who are not hyper-diligent about YouTube but are still quite successful.

Wow! Let me get this straight Soda. Someone picked up a guitar in his home, turned on a vid cam and recorded himself doing a cover of "Hotel California", posted it on YouTube and had it pulled?

First off, I find that very hard to believe at face value. I'd want to know if it was YouTube's over reaction. Or if it was some agent of Henley or Eagles who was acting independently of the desires of Mr. Henley. Or if it was direct command by Henley through "Cass" that resulted in the removal of the video.

I am no lawyer. But I do not see how you, me or anyone else's playing of a hit song is going to be a violation of anyone's "rights" as long as there is no intent to profit from it. From that standpoint, YouTube is the only "party" who stood to profit from the video....it's presence might make YouTube more popular. It certainly would do nothing "financially" for the amateur who recorded it under those particular circumstances.

Now, if it turned out that it really was at the instruction of Henley or his company, Cass Country Music with his knowledge, then I have to really question my loyalty to any entity who would take such a petty action.

I am truly appalled at this. :sad:

Gosh, I wonder if Joe Walsh is going to make me remove that little riff of "Turn To Stone" in my signature? Nah, no chance. I don't think it is good enough for him to recognize as being His song.

hmmmm.... okay, so here is something that might surprise you...

Did you know when you go to a bar and hear a band play... the bar pays fees to cover the copyright? or that when you play a song on a jukebox... copyright gets paid?

it is true.

When OLGA (the online guitar archive) came out.. I loved it because it made is super simple to work up songs or the band to play... way less work and even when there were mistakes... it was still easier. not to mention, for once we had the lyrics right! it is gone now... but man, it was great... even though I knew it was 'illegal' most of the songs we wanted weren't available for sale.

But, publishing is where the money is at... if you let folks flaut the law, you are effectively giving permission... I'm sure the actual artists are taking the advice of their legal team and I'm sure their legal team isn't taking the risk of losing the publishing and the copyright on a cash cow until that cow is done giving milk (public domain)...

My niece is an attorney and we've talked about this at length... she pretty consistently says, "if someone gets a benefit without paying, they owe."

We might say that having a 'free' site where you review videos or strum hotel california there is no benefit for the person... the courts might see it differently... here's how.

I went to see the movie "the blind side" on thanksgiving night. I enjoyed it very much. We bought tickets for 18 people to go... we all loved it (okay, one of my brothers didn't, but he is grumpy) anyway, we were entertained and felt good as walked out.

When some folks make websites or youtube videos it makes them feel good... there is satisfaction in sharing for some folks. And, as the kudos roll in for their strumming or for providing old videos that people want to see, they receive compliments and their value (as a provider) is raised. By using other people's material, they have increased their own 'value' even though all they have effectively done is either the work of posting it or learning the song and strumming it.

That is a point of view that is not common, but it is what the issue is.

Someday, it will no longer be an issue as folks will have figured out the best way and people will accept things as they are... to be sure, the history of copyright does not run back to the magna carta (heck, america is named after the wrong people, but no one cares anymore)... but for now, I'm sure if someone was taking something that you made or owned and using it without permission... some of us would want to get paid for our innovations... some wouldn't care... to date, the split among people I know is: People who haven't made anything... don't care about getting paid and accept piracy. People who have written songs, software, created goods.. get really pissed when people steal it.

I have never shot at people when I found them hunting or trespassing on my land... but, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't furious with them.... if they had asked nicely, I may have even allowed for it, but since they assumed that I'd say no, they just did it anyway....

It'll be awhile until it is figured out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeA

Wow! Let me get this straight Soda. Someone picked up a guitar in his home, turned on a vid cam and recorded himself doing a cover of "Hotel California", posted it on YouTube and had it pulled?

First off, I find that very hard to believe at face value. I'd want to know if it was YouTube's over reaction. Or if it was some agent of Henley or Eagles who was acting independently of the desires of Mr. Henley. Or if it was direct command by Henley through "Cass" that resulted in the removal of the video.

I am no lawyer. But I do not see how you, me or anyone else's playing of a hit song is going to be a violation of anyone's "rights" as long as there is no intent to profit from it. From that standpoint, YouTube is the only "party" who stood to profit from the video....it's presence might make YouTube more popular. It certainly would do nothing "financially" for the amateur who recorded it under those particular circumstances.

Now, if it turned out that it really was at the instruction of Henley or his company, Cass Country Music with his knowledge, then I have to really question my loyalty to any entity who would take such a petty action.

I am truly appalled at this. :sad:

Gosh, I wonder if Joe Walsh is going to make me remove that little riff of "Turn To Stone" in my signature? Nah, no chance. I don't think it is good enough for him to recognize as being His song.

---

Follow this link to see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQQPMjDse-E

And as proof that he's telling the truth, that the video was only of him strumming the song on his couch, check out all the other videos he's uploaded:

http://www.youtube.com/user/uncleparsnip

The entity who told YouTube to take down his video: Cass County Music.

Jeez Nancy, that is just WRONG. I only wish I was good enough to HURT the Eagles financially. Not that I'd want to hurt them. But I wish I were that good!

And BB, legally, I'm sure that your interpretation of the copyright law is right.

And I know that Bars pay a fee that eventually gets back to the owners of the publication rights of the music their musicians play. It's the same with sheet music for Churches. They pay a fee for the right to make copies of lyrics that they "hand out" to congregations to use in services.

But by using the argument that someone gained something from the song without paying for it....you couldn't listen to a recording by Eagles that you didn't purchase yourself but that someone else was playing for you on their home stereo system. The owner of the recording would be legal, but YOU wouldn't be because you hadn't PAID for the privilege of listening to it.

This could truly be "The Day The Music Died."

I agree with the laws on copyright concerning the copying of music as applied to the reproduction of recorded material. The artists do deserve the income from that. I agree with the laws concerning the copying of sheet music that the artists have created and authorized to be sold (song books, stuff like that).

But Amateur renditions of popular songs? I'm not talking about You taking a song and covering it in a bar somewhere (I would have said "I" or "ME" instead of "YOU", but I've listened to "You" and I've listened to "Me" and I can see You being able to do that; Not Me <LOL>). I can see profit in that both for You and for the Bar in that it could draw in more business.

No, I'm talking about You sitting down in the den and picking up a guitar and playing that song. I just can't see that as being a situation in which You are hurting anyone.

I know that I'm "in the wrong" here LEGALLY. But by the interpretation of the law a I see it being applied in your explanation and by the actions of Cass Country Music by telling YouTube to pull the vids, it is a violation of the law for someone even to freakin' "Hum" a song.

Seriously, "At what point does the use of recorded material become illegal?"

it is legal for you to listen to a friends cd. it is legal for you to have a party and play music without paying any additional fees.

just so you know. the law is really clear on those points. it is also legal to make copies of your music or 'rip' them and listen to them on your ipod.

ponder this (and I have thought about this a good deal and do not know the answer, even for myself.)

what makes someone sit in their livingroom and record their version of hotel california and then feel the need to post it on youtube? what is that all about?

what is the motivation? would it be as good if they made up their own song? sang a song in the public domain (like a hank williams song say?)

Why do we do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bernie's bender

ponder this (and I have thought about this a good deal and do not know the answer, even for myself.)

what makes someone sit in their livingroom and record their version of hotel california and then feel the need to post it on youtube? what is that all about?

what is the motivation? would it be as good if they made up their own song? sang a song in the public domain (like a hank williams song say?)

Why do we do it?

---

That one's simple: VANITY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeA

That one's simple: VANITY.

---

could be.... and if you are right... vanity has a price tag.

and, when the actual artists says, "hey, not so fast, you gotta pay to play" it attacks vanity at its root... hence, the upset.

in a narcissistic age.... where it is all about 'me' having anyone tell you you can't be the star of the show... well, they are evil.

about a month ago we were playing on a saturday night and a group of 4 very cute, very drunk girls were in and they wanted their friend to come up and sing with us... okay, I said... here is our set list for our next set... which song do you wanna do? she laughed and took me aside and said, I'm way to drunk and I'm not that good of a singer, could you just tell me you can't let me up to sing?

So, I agreed. The other girls were PISSED. About halfway through the set one of them threw a drink in our direction (landing short of us) but broken glass and all that and some wet dancers.... they got 86'd but it was a weird deal...

As invested as I am in, say, the Eagles and their music and it being a big part of the soundtrack of my own life... it is there stuff... not mine. If I had written some of their songs.. I'd want to get paid if other people were going to benefit from it.... or I would at least want the option to give it away rather than have someone take it.

It just seems strange to want it for free...the Eagles have brought me so much pleasure over the years, I'm happy to pay them for that.. just as I was happy to pay at the theater to watch the "blind side"...

oh well.... we all have our ways of seeing it... I'm sure in a generation or so... this won't even be a conversation...

Honestly, I can see your point BB but for those who can't afford CDs in this economy, Youtube is probably the best bet to listen to songs from a particular CD.

BB, You know the respect I have for you and I'm being totally sincere about that. You're a musician. Semi-pro if not professional with the talent to substantiate the attitude you present.

All the rest of us, the 99% who purchase musical instruments, are no where near as talented and are happy just banging away at a guitar, or drums, or piano, KNOWING we'll never make a commercial attempt at marketing our meager efforts in any shape form or fashion. We're never going to be performing at the Bullspit Bar, let alone Carnegie Hall or The Grand Ole Opry.

Oh, sorry, but I really didn't understand your point with the story about the 4 drunk girls. Was it that the girl they coerced into getting up on the stage didn't deserve to be there because she didn't have the talent? Or was it that they got 86'd for causing trouble when they threw their drinks at you?

Most of us couldn't put together a marketable lyric set or even one close to technically correct if our lives depended on it. We couldn't make a run through a song without a mistake that we couldn't cover up for love or money! Most of us have vocals that are average to poor at best! Thank God our lives do NOT depend on whatever it is we can do musically.

But, does that mean that we should not play or sing for the sake of our own Vanity? If that were the case, there would be a LOT of people out of work. Folks working for Fender, Gibson and Taylor to name a few. Recon the majority of their sales come from Professional Musicians? Wonder what percentage is of those making guitar purchases who have ever wrote or performed anything "original"?

And, if those making purchases could not legally play anything they didn't compose themselves, I wonder how many would go out and pay someone the price for a guitar, amp and mic? Specifically, that is what we are talking about isn't it? If you didn't write it, you can't sing it.

Oops...that just brought to mind a time in Jr. High when I played "House of the Rising Sun" at a school assembly! "They" didn't toss coins at me...they might have tossed eggs and tomatoes though. Maybe I should get in touch with Eric Berdon and send him a couple of bucks. But after looking it up, I lucked out. While Berdon with The Animals had a hit with it, the origin of the song is "unknown". Just an American Folk Song. So maybe I'm still a non-felon. WHEW!

I suspect that most bands got their start doing covers. I would imagine that they practice songs originated by someone else that they never performed live. Were they violating copyright laws since they never had the clubs paying for the rights to perform that song since they only did it in their garages?

Joe Walsh has said that he learned every Beatles song in their catalog. If he learned them, that implies he played them. I've only heard him perform one Beatles song "live" and that was "Something" that he accompanied Celine Dion on a Televised Special.

Or is this one of those things that everyone "does" and it's considered "okay" as long as they don't perform it to make a profit from it? I don't see any difference in playing by oneself for your own entertainment and doing the same thing and recording it for anyone who wishes to enjoy it as long as you are not profiting from it.

Now, back to the original issue. The guy who played and recorded "Hotel California" and put it up on YouTube. He's not getting anything out of it other than the stroking of his Vanity button.

However, I do see the conflict here. YouTube IS profiting from it even though our amateur wasn't. With performances by groups or individuals that are true quality, more people are drawn to YouTube to experience it. With more people visiting YouTube, the more the advitisers are going to pay to be featured on YouTube. YouTube prospers from these performances.

This I can understand. I'm not sure I totally agree with it, but I do understand it. Now, I wonder if, had this guy loaded his videos to a personal website that had no advertisers paying him to feature their ads...I wonder if Cass Country Music would have insisted that he pull it down?

What if he published his videos HERE on The Border where there is no profit being taken by anyone? Do you think it would still be a violation? Would you think the Eagles had the right to force the removal of such a video? I can see them insisting on removal of something they've recorded and published. Someone could download that and have a copy as good as the original. That is definitely violating the rights of the Eagles and is rightly opening the violator up for legal action.

But someone else recording the song without intent to profit in any way? Or is it your point that the act of playing and recording "Hotel California" for your own use is something that the Eagles should be compensated for because you received some degree of pleasure from it? I thought music was created to bring pleasure to the listeners. But if this is the way the law reads, then it would be illegal for someone to walk down the street humming the song!

Nancy, invite the guy to post his videos here on The Border and let's see if we get spanked for it <LOL>

Moderator's note: Moved to 'Singing for the sake of the song' because it's about music. While I sympathise with Rambo for the videos being removed from YouTube I'm not sure it's in the 'wonders' category.

It is about the Music FP. And I've got to say that I am thoroughly enjoying the dialog here. It is really making me examine my own Thoughts on this matter. It just never occurred to me that singing someone else's song might be something that is "Wrong".

I honesty do not think that they (Cass Country Music or Henley) are objecting to the guy video-tapping his rendition of the song on a classical guitar without any vocals! Henley has stated before his position concerning YouTube. And it isn't "favorable" <LOL>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeA

Most of us couldn't put together a marketable lyric set or even one close to technically correct if our lives depended on it. We couldn't make a run through a song without a mistake that we couldn't cover up for love or money! Most of us have vocals that are average to poor at best! Thank God our lives do NOT depend on whatever it is we can do musically.

But, does that mean that we should not play or sing for the sake of our own Vanity? If that were the case, there would be a LOT of people out of work. Folks working for Fender, Gibson and Taylor to name a few. Recon the majority of their sales come from Professional Musicians? Wonder what percentage is of those making guitar purchases who have ever wrote or performed anything "original"?

And, if those making purchases could not legally play anything they didn't compose themselves, I wonder how many would go out and pay someone the price for a guitar, amp and mic? Specifically, that is what we are talking about isn't it? If you didn't write it, you can't sing it.

---

Very good points. I think a lot of these guys forget that there was a time when they were not writing songs - they were playing other people's songs - and they were probably doing it in front of other people - and they never felt they were breaking the law.

Let's look at it this way. It's 1970 in Los Angeles. Some guys are hanging out at a party jamming. They start playing a Beatles song, then a Rolling Stones song.... songs everybody knows. It's in public and people are listening to it, enjoying it. Illegal? What if an industry guy walks in, hears them playing these songs, and gives them an audition which leads to a record contract. Illegal? I wonder how many times The Four Speeds played covers at friend's parties...

People have always played songs written by others for their friends. Now, technology has allowed their circle of friends to become a lot bigger... but I don't see a difference otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bernie's bender

and, when the actual artists says, "hey, not so fast, you gotta pay to play" it attacks vanity at its root... hence, the upset.

---

Regarding upset, I think a source of it is a feeling of betrayal - the most common response to this act is "I'm no longer buying their music/going to see their shows anymore." The mentality is: "I was a big fan - they've gotten lots of money from me - and they're hurting me." The fan feels not only unappreciated, but attacked.

I also think a lot of people's upset comes from the "big guys picking on little guys" syndrome, too. Nobody likes to see some average Joe being kicked around by a millionaire.

You don't see this kind of behavior from struggling young artists. They WANT their music to "go viral" on YouTube, and if some guy plays their song on YouTube and it gets hits - which in turn leads to more publicity for them - they welcome it. Yeah, many of them wouldn't like it if someone gave away their albums - and who could blame them! - but they understand there's a difference between someone uploading their album and someone uploading their live performances or covers of their songs. It's the older and/or richer guys who conflate everything into "stealing music" without any discernment, and they garner a great deal of ill will from people who DO see a difference.

Common sense... that's what people need to exercise here. Choose your battles wisely. Go after those who hurt you; leave alone those who don't. Especially leave alone your fans who love you and who have supported you monetarily in other ways.

The disconnect here, I think, is not between people who are creative and people who aren't. (Ask Eagles songwriter Larry J. McNally, who posted a blog in which he compliments a YouTube fan video made to I Love to Watch a Woman Dance). It's between people who believe that there's gray areas regarding YouTube and copyright, and those who see it strictly in black and white. That kind of disconnect is nothing new. Henley himself has sung about it:

Well it sure makes you wonder
The things that some people will say
They can see black and white but they
Don't seem to notice the gray

- "Nobody's Business"

Hence the problem.

Mike,

the respect is mutual to be sure!

The story about the girls was intended to illustrate that they were angry because they felt a sense of entitlement, that they DESERVED to sing because they were in the club... kind of the customer is always right.

We have two members in our country band that HATE when people want to sing and get made when we let them. It is there position that we are professional musicians performing music for people (for pay)... it is my take that we are entertainers being paid to entertain the crowd which can include letting audience members sing once in awhile...

I think hanging out in your house or in a garage and jamming with friends poses no issue on the copyright front (obviously xeroxing charts and music is a violation, I have absolutely been in violation of this.)

The two key issues: 1) If an artist (or his folks) does not enforce copyright does he lose rights? Yes. And he loses money that the law says is his. 2) Is there a benefit garnered by the violator? Is the gain measurable in monetary terms? Some times. Remember the ukulele guy... that Jake guy who did the "over the rainbow" and became a pretty big star through his youtube... did choosing that song, benefit him? I'd argue it did (I also think the copyright for that song has lapsed, so it was hunky dory) but if he had done, say, "Fire and Rain" or "Take it Easy" shouldn't the songwriter have benefitted too? I don't know for sure myself.

I don't have any strong feelings about this issue. A song is not like a brownie (this is my stoner friends explanation of this.) A song is not a brownie... now, if some fools went and took 3 or 4 brownies that your grandma made for you because she loves you... she'd be mad and you'd be mad. Then, if you found them selling those brownies for 2 bucks a piece, you'd really be mad. Hell, if they had asked your granny, she would have made them some... but stealing them.. that is bad.

one other thing I've learned over the years is: They call it show business, not show fun. When we get disappointed in artists whose music we love... just realize, us criticizing what they do professionally would be like having your neighbor who loves your yard come to your office and be mad about your phone mannerisms. it is about making money... for better or worse.

As you've seen in my posts BB, I've done a turn-around after my initial kneejerk response to the HC version posted on YouTube. Worthwhile for me personally because it has caused me to really think through the points you've made.

I still maintain that there is no infringement if someone is "covering" a song that is not intended to be used for personal gain. By that I am strictly talking about money. Not an inflated ego that has been "gained". I suppose you could say that getting your ego stroked is personal gain, but I don't think you could assign a specific monetary value to it.

Where I had to rethink my first reaction lies in the realization that YouTube is like a huge Bar that doesn't require a cover charge. To the fans, it's FREE. To the Artists, it's free. With YouTube as the Bar, it is getting paid for the presence of the fans not through the drinks they sell at the Bar, but rather by providing an audience to the Advertisers who ARE paying Them for the privilege of promoting their products.

Oh, with the girls....Don't see them "entitled" to anything. There were four of them...right? You mentioned that they threw a glass that broke and got some of the dancers wet so there must have been quite a few other people in the club. If it had been just the three Other girls present in the club, I might have said "Okay, come on up." But the other people in the club at the time had "entitlements" too. They were entitled to hear a professional band performing and had paid through whatever means for that "right". The did not pay to hear some Karaoke Queen potentially butcher one of your songs!

There may be exceptions...such as that the bar and you may have been contracted to provide entertainment for a company party. You might at that time either invite or be required to let those attending participate up on stage.

I understand that there are "open mic" nights at bars and clubs around the country where that isn't the case. Guitarists, singers, drummers...whoever, know that they will get a shot at performing on those nights with other musicians.

Or maybe you KNEW that the person requesting a stage presence was GOOD and didn't mind bringing them up.

Their "entitlements" just don't extent to the extreme of getting up on stage and interrupting the flow of the band's set. I understand that there are "open mic" nights at bars and clubs around the country where that isn't the case.

Well things have gone from bad to worse. Cass Country Music claimed a copyright infringement against my account again. You know what for?

A live video of "The Long Run"... BY DON FELDER!

How the Hell does Henley's publishing company claim a copyright infringement on a video that is not even of him!? It's a cover version! Good Lord!

So now my account is deleted. Thank you very much, Mr. Henley.

Thank god I saved back ups of all my videos. This means I can re-upload them in higher quality, I guess. At least non-Eagles material.

:enraged: :censored: I really cannot get started on this whole thing!!! :sad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RamboIV

Well things have gone from bad to worse. Cass Country Music claimed a copyright infringement against my account again. You know what for?

A live video of "The Long Run"... BY DON FELDER!

How the Hell does Henley's publishing company claim a copyright infringement on a video that is not even of him!? It's a cover version! Good Lord!

So now my account is deleted. Thank you very much, Mr. Henley.

Thank god I saved back ups of all my videos. This means I can re-upload them in higher quality, I guess. At least non-Eagles material.

---

it isn't about the performance, it is about the authorship of the song. Cass Country could probably care less about who does it, they want to be paid when it is performed by anyone or shared by anyone. It is their legal right, they are just enforcing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bernie's bender

it isn't about the performance, it is about the authorship of the song. Cass Country could probably care less about who does it, they want to be paid when it is performed by anyone or shared by anyone. It is their legal right, they are just enforcing it.

---

And it is our right to want to listen to a song on Youtube is that so bad?

I'm not surprised they forced you to take down The Long Run. Don Henley co-wrote that tune, so his company can take down videos of other people performing it. The fact that the performer is ex-Eagle Don Felder is ironic, but not relevant legally.

Now, if Cass County Music attempted to force you to take down a video of Felder doing Heavy Metal or other solo material simply because he happened to be an Eagle at one time... then they'd be going beyond their legal purview.

CCM does have a legal right to take the videos down. We may hope that they wouldn't be so heavy handed and unbending. We may hope that they would think outside of the "YOU TUBE IS EVIL" box. We may hope they would follow the lead of other successful bands who have utilized YouTube instead of fighting a futile battle which accomplishes nothing but garnering ill will from fans. We may hope they would realize that just because they CAN take down the videos doesn't mean they SHOULD.

However, if they choose to be unyielding, we have to just shake our heads, sigh heavily, and suck it up - unless you wanna go on the upload/removal merry-go-round, or quit YouTube altogether and find someplace else to post your videos.

All I can say is.............. Go to Dailymotion or Hulu. I wish Don wouldn't be such a scrooge towards Youtube.

What I don't get is, there are hundreds of Eagles video's on youtube. How do they decide which ones they want to take down?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EagleLady

And it is our right to want to listen to a song on Youtube is that so bad?

---

No, but whose rights are more important? Ours or the song's co-author?

It's worth repeating that only CCM is doing this, not Red Cloud Music (Glenn's company) although all his vidoes were removed from YouTube at one point. There are still a couple there, but Universal didn't put them up.