Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvthelighthouse

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?

---

Good question. It seems very random. Two people upload the same video. One gets taken down, the other doesn't. Their songs are still up there; it's just now there are only 5 versions of the song instead of 10. Thus, they haven't even accomplished their most basic goal of protecting their copyright, since the material remains. Putting aside the damage to public relations, the YouTube purges are failures in practical terms as well.

Also, something I mentioned earlier that I find very ironic is that the uploading of commercially available material such as songs from HFO and F1 seems to be largely left alone, while the fanvids and fan covers are targeted by whoever is making the complaints on behalf of Henley. (For instance, you can easily find The Long Run from Farewell 1 currently on YouTube - here's an example.)

That is inexplicable to me. It's like they are TRYING to alienate fans!

Re the removal of the YouTube video of the guy 'sitting on his sofa' playing HC, did anyone notice that if you click on his user name, and then do a few more clicks, there is a 'commercial' link to buy tabs? Perhaps that's the major reason Cass asked for the removal of the video. On the other hand, I can't see HC in the list of tabs available, but Cass could have ordered him to stop selling them. Or ordered the removal of HC in case he published tabs of it in the future.

I am really torn on the whole YouTube issue.
About 18 months ago, I was idly looking through the 'cheap records' on a fairly well-known internet site, and one of the offers was LROOE. There were snippets of the songs to listen to, and I really liked several of the songs, so decided to buy it.
That was probably about the same sort of time that I began to really discover YT (I'm not the world's greatest techie :grin:). And I found all these great vidoes of the Eagles in concert(s) - Farewell Tour, and the Long Run.
After playing 'You belong in the city' from Farewell more than was good for my health (the tops of Tim's legs about 1.30 in :thud:) and bandwidth, I thought I ought to buy the video. And while I was getting that, I might as well get the Long Run.
By now I had completely fallen in love with Tim's voice, so the plastic took another battering when two of his CDs cost me £22 each (about $71 in total at today's conversion so actually a very good buy). The other two were a bit cheaper.
I was talking to a friend about the Eagles and for some reason we both said 'New York minute' at the same time. Friend made me a boot-leg copy of the 'End of the innocence' CD. Fell in love with Don's voice, and I now have his four 'main' albums (not the 'hits' ones) - including 'End of the innocence'.
I believe I have all the Poco CDs Tim sang on, I have the Eagles 'Country roads' DVD, and have just bought all of their old CDs.

I realise that the typical YT user doesn't go quite so overboard as me :grin:, but it's impossible to equate just how many extra records are sold as a result of someone finding an artist on YT.

As I said, I'm really torn, but YT is possibly not quite the devil Don would like to make it out to be.

Well, if he were trying to sell HC tabs, that WOULD make him a lot less sympathetic! He claims they instructed YouTube to take the video down solely because he was covering the song, though, as they did with the Don Felder videos that Joe posted. I guess it depends on if you believe him or not!

I think there are many, many people with similar stories to yours regarding buying things as a result of YouTube, UKTimFan.

I think those that buy CD's based on youtube, evens out those that don't. As I stated, I bought LROOE solely because of what I heard on youtube. MY friends recommendation didn't even sell me, but YT did.

From there, I went on to buy all their CD's as well as a couple of Poco CD's. Also, I purchased Farewell 1 due to YT.

If only some artist's could come around and embrace YT, they just may find it truely is a great marketing tool.

Cass County Music is taking all the Eagles videos i posted on youtube down

Unsurprising. They've been busy lately. I'm sorry your efforts went to waste, Shadowland.

Don needs to lighten up while he still can about Youtube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowland07

Cass County Music is taking all the Eagles videos i posted on youtube down

---

I hear ya! They took down the "Boys of Summer" video that I recorded in Fargo last year. Maybe I should take down the "Long Run" video before they ban me from youtube. lol So annoying!

i know. i posted the videos that were for download on eaglesonlinecentral.com and they took down most of them. it sucks cause fans wont be able to enjoy them. one of two things need to happen
1) they let us keep the videos on YouTube or
2) they release a Beatles Anthology thingy of the Eagles or something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maleah

I hear ya! They took down the "Boys of Summer" video that I recorded in Fargo last year. Maybe I should take down the "Long Run" video before they ban me from youtube. lol So annoying!

---

One of the videos they took down was a 14-year-old girl singing Hotel California - not a recorded version of the Eagles doing it, not sung along with the album track - just a young girl singing a song she loved, filmed and uploaded to YouTube by her father.

:headshake:

It's ridiculous, imo. All they are accomplishing is making themselves look like arrogant jerks and in the long run they'll lose fans over it. I looked up Cass County Music after they removed my video and saw they have been VERY busy. There were a lot of people who were very upset and chose to no longer be supportive of the artists.

I understand if people are providing something for free that the artists could be making money from, but come on.......a cover of a song by a 14 year old???? Puhlease

There are many stories like the above.

Check this one out from Harmony Central.

Wow. That is uncalled for to scare a child like that

This sickens me. The only thing that would make me angrier is if the guys actually know to what extent this has gone and are letting it happen. I'm picturing something like this happening to my 17 year old daughter, who's been a fan for years, she would be devastated and I'm sure would no longer be a fan.

Do you think they actually know to what extent this has reached? I certainly hope not but I'd put $$ on it that they do.

I know this isn't going to sound good but I will say it anyways, I will always LOVE LOVE LOVE their music and them as musicians, BUT if they are a part of something like this, I have to admit, I don't care much for them as people. Maleah--you hit the nail on the head, they really are "arrogant jerks" if they are letting this happen.

Way to treat your fans~~ Remember? Those people that made you what you are today?:-(

I still think it's worth pointing out that Cass County Music is only affiliated with Don Henley. It is Don Henley's publishing company and does not represent the Eagles. It certainly does not represent Glenn Frey, whose publishing company is Red Cloud Music. It may or may be acting for the band's collective interest, but we don't know that for sure.

Correct me if I'm wrong please, but didn't they recently take down some of Tim's stuff from some of his solo shows also?

I know I personally haven't received a complaint on Tim material specifically, but one of my accounts which hosted material from all the Eagles was deleted and thus the Tim material went with it. Perhaps others have had different experiences.

The first YouTube video I ever got taken down was thanks to Joe's busy bee lawyers Paterno et.al, and that was years ago before Cass County went on their spree. I have never received a notice from Red Cloud Music on any of my YouTube accounts.

What I do not get, is why they (Don et al) loathe youtube. If I want a quality piece of music, I will buy the CD. "I", personally, do not think of youtube as quality at all. It's more for fun or "entertainment" purposes. It's never going to take the place of a live concert or real CD (or legally downloaded material).

To "me", it's just another media connection between rockstar and fan. Nothing more.

Granted, I am clearly not a top rated musician... but still, most people aren't. I'm sure that the general population doesn't look to youtube for anything of true quality to take the place of something an established band has put out.

Yes, I know, some bands don't want anything out there except top notch quality. The Eagles being right up there... as we know they closely monitor their concerts to sound just like the CD w/little to no variation. Something us fans have come to except... however, I think the whole youtube thing is out of control... as some of these musicans should realize, their fans are everyday people and want to see or hear their favorite band in any capacity... not just overproduced CD's.

Okay... off soapbox... I'm sure I'll be blasted, but it's just "my" opinion and "my" thoughts.

Maybe that's what I'm thinking Soda. I just remember one day Timothy's solo show was there and a few days later, not.

Was thinking about this earlier. I don't upload anything on YouTube but I do frequent it alot to check my faves out. I have different playlists for my faves like Cars, Sweet, Eagles, Styx, etc.... but I don't know why I bother with Eagles. Every time I bring it up, the stuff I added to that playlist has been taken down. :sad: I keep it there, I believe, only because I feel "obligated" to have an Eagles playlist. :hilarious:

I think the issue is with copyright and ownership, not the quality of the YouTube clips.

The Eagles are not unique YET as being a band that gained popularity during a period in which record sales and radio play were EVERYTHING. While they definitely are not stupid, I think that their embracing of the technology of today has never occurred. In attitude, they seem to be still living in a world of record sales being their main income.

Obviously, that is not the case. They have all but acknowledged that it is their concert tours themselves that are making them rich and not the sales of CDs at Wal-Mart.

That is what surprises me about this "YouTube" thing. Seeing them on YouTube would seem to me a medium that would encourage the general population to part with hard earned cash to see them live. They have adversely embraced YouTube as a "friend" and instead made of it "The Enemy".

I'm sure their income from the CD sales, after paying for distribution and production isn't asparagus. Yet, even if YouTube hurt those sales (which I strongly DOUBT) it would more than make up for it in increased TICKET SALES if it were handled properly.

What if there were links on each YouTube vid made available that allowed the listener to link to and download a high quality MP3 for $.99 like most artists are now doing. Or download an entire album for $8 or $10 like many artists are doing. That would completely cut out production of the physical CD medium and also would virtually eliminate distribution.

I think they are missing the boat on this one. But they can afford to miss it in order to stand on a Principle concerning YouTube that walks hand in hand with the monopoly (practically speaking) of that FM Radio Corp (Clear Channel Radio?) that they have openly criticized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freypower

I think the issue is with copyright and ownership, not the quality of the YouTube clips.

---

I suppose... but I still do not agree/understand their point of view. Perhaps if Henley himself sat down and explained exactly why he feels the way he does, I "might" get it... but honestly, I'd try to sway his opinion. :laugh:

All I know is one of the reasons he founded the Recording Artists Coalition is because of his obsession with 'the right to own his own ideas' (Inside Job).

Some of his thoughts on this are here.

http://www.donhenleyonline.com/artic...WhitePaper.htm

And:

And as head of the Recording Artists Coalition, he has challenged the recording industry on a number of issues, particularly the disbursement of royalties and the question of who owns the rights to original recordings.

As Henley sees it, there's an industry tradition going back 60 years of shortchanging the artist. Ask him why the system has proliferated for so long and he gives you an earful.

"Because artists are artists," he says matter-of-factly. "Because artists don't have any business sense and because the lawyers who are supposed to be protecting the artists haven't really stood up to the labels."

Plus, Henley argues, the system is designed to take advantage of newer artists. "All a young kid wants to do is make a record and hear it on the radio and maybe get a little money and get some girls and get some popularity," he says. "They don't think about the long-term consequences. They don't think about the fine print in the contract. You can try and explain it to them and they still don't hear you . . . They just want to be in the game."

Of course, you could argue that Henley has chosen a bad time to pick a fight with the record companies, who have suffered declining sales in recent years and have struggled against the advent of online music downloading. But that's precisely the point.

"Get 'em when they're down," Henley says. "They certainly won't listen to us when times are good, they'll laugh and brush us aside. So this is actually the best time . . . They need our help to fight piracy. They need our help to fight a lot of things. We're saying, 'We'll help you if you treat us fairly.' " (Copied from DHO Palm Beach Post interview, 2003).

well pretty sure my new account will be deleted in just a few days. i just received another warning and they took down my video of them playin Witchy Woman in Holland down.

The whole thing is so sad to me.:-(

It IS SAD. And I'm with Henley on the issue as to the way the Recording Industry has treated artists in the past, and maybe still do treat them. Most Artist are not "Business Men".

Henley isn't the only one who feels Artists have been screwed badly by the recording industry.

Look at what Clapton has done. Maybe Eric is more in tune and is doing as much in his own way as Henley is doing. Eric acknowledges the contributions, particularly of Black Artists who were swindled out of what was rightfully theirs by the Record Companies. Many of these musicians are even today living in poverty when they should have been rewarded with compensating royalties for their work. Clapton has helped many by touring with them using his "draw" to insure higher record sales and notoriety.

I am not criticizing Henley for this. I applaud him for it in fact! My criticism pertains to his methods. I simply think that he and the Agents of The Eagles and other groups possibly, are not embrassing the electronic media in a way that is best for the financial wellbeing of the group or Artists in General.

Well said, Mike - ITA!

well Cass County took down my cover of Certain Kind of Fool :-x

i just don't get it, they should be proud that people are covering the Eagles. but no instead they decide to try to drive away their fans

what songs do they own the rights to? knowing will help me prevent getting another one of my youtube accounts disabled

Cass County Music is connected with just about all of Don's catalog, so pretty much whatever he wrote or co-wrote would fall under their purview.

However, with YouTube, it's guilty until proven innocent. Cass County Music could tell YouTube to take down a video you've posted that does not actually contain material copyrighted to Don - for instance, a solo video of Glenn, Tim, Joe, Randy, Bernie, or Felder - and it would go down without question. You would have to issue an appeal to get it put back, and to do that you would have to be able to provide proof of copyright. Since you can't do that, your video stays down (and, on the third instance, your account disabled) regardless of whether or not Cass County Music has any legal claim.

I know this because it's happened to me under some of my many YouTube IDs. I used to post videos to YouTube like a maniac (one of which was the video of "How Long" that inspired them to re-record the song but ANYWAY...). I've honestly lost track of how many IDs I made up - one would get shut down, I'd create a new one. On one account, I had posted live videos of Glenn doing Desperado and also Glenn doing the Heat Is On, and Cass County Music told YouTube to remove both.

In fact, the first video I ever got taken down was a video of Joe photos set to the Stevie Nicks song, "Has Anyone Ever Written Anything for You." Paterno et al, representing Joe, demanded the video taken down. Joe had no copyright on those photos and the song was copyrighted to Stevie Nicks and Welsh Witch Music, but that made no difference - YouTube did as Paterno asked regardless.

Why did I upload those videos? It was because I wanted to share the videos I didn't have room for on my sites - plus, in the beginning, I only had a Glenn site so all the songs by the other guys weren't getting put up. It felt like such a waste that no one could see them. (Back then there wasn't much Eagles stuff on YouTube.)

I don't have the time to do that kind of thing anymore, so my crazy YouTube days are over. However, I really don't need to upload anything anymore... thanks to the increasing commonality of torrent sites who provide access to rarities, the increasing ease of ripping videos to file format, and the increasing speed of internet connections which enables more convenient uploading/downloading, the videos are circulating much more widely. Thus, I can just leave it to other people to post them.

That's why CCM's "crack down" is a big waste of effort - the videos are still out there. The barn door's lock is broken and slamming that door shut only lasts until the next cow nudges it open again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Cass County Music is connected with just about all of Don's catalog, so pretty much whatever he wrote or co-wrote would fall under their purview.

However, with YouTube, it's guilty until proven innocent. Cass County Music could tell YouTube to take down a video you've posted that does not actually contain material copyrighted to Don - for instance, a solo video of Glenn, Tim, Joe, Randy, Bernie, or Felder - and it would go down without question.

---

Why does Cass County have the power to remove material pertaining to the other Eagles? Particularly solo material which Henley had nothing to do with?

Henley co-wrote Certain Kind of Fool, yes, but this seems to be going beyond what is reasonable.

I think that ANYONE can claim the right whether justified or not in demanding that something be removed. It is pretty much up to YouTube whether or not to risk lawsuit in leaving it up. Cass Country just presses beyond their authority and YouTube must figure it is less chance of them getting into a lawsuit if they bow to the Powers rather than contest them.

If you want to take any joy out of this situation, consider that Cass Country and those they represent is PAYING someone to scourer the files on YouTube looking for items they can complain about. It is costing them money. Hopefully, it is costing them a lot more than they could possibly be saving by not allowing people to enjoy that which they are not trying to sell. Obviously, Henley and those who represent him are standing on principle. Again "Obviously", Don Henley can afford it!

At some point. All the wiggling and sniveling has to be done and folks are gonna have to own up their own vanity or just live an illusion.

Our collages of images and sound are just dandy so long as we use them within the bounds of our own entertainment. If we own bootlegs of performances and use them for our own personal entertainment, there won't be any problem.

It is when vanity takes over that we get crossed up. Create something original or pay the appropriate price to use the materials that you do not own or keep them within the domain of fair use.

Vanity is wicked, it nearly never sees itself (yes, I am including myself in that metric.)


We can disrespect the snitch, but we can't excuse away the misdeed.

Yes, we're all vain, to varying degrees. Isn't vanity what drives a musician from strumming in his bedroom to performing on a stage?

"Look at me, baby, look at me! I'm beautiful, I'm beautiful, I'm Somebody!" ;)

I for one am glad the Eagles were vain enough to share their talents with the world. I've certainly benefited, as have millions of others.

Has it gotten out of control? Has vanity taken over? Are they too full of themselves now? Do they have an overblown sense of entitlement, a loss of perspective? Well, that's hard to say. Such judgments are entirely subjective; it behooves all of us to remember that when we feel the urge to cast stones - myself included.

see i'm the kind of YouTuber that posts videos of me cover songs either on guitar or bass. i want to be able to post a few covers without my account being disabled

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Yes, we're all vain, to varying degrees. Isn't vanity what drives a musician from strumming in his bedroom to performing on a stage?

"Look at me, baby, look at me! I'm beautiful, I'm beautiful, I'm Somebody!" ;)

I for one am glad the Eagles were vain enough to share their talents with the world. I've certainly benefited, as have millions of others.

Has it gotten out of control? Has vanity taken over? Are they too full of themselves now? Do they have an overblown sense of entitlement, a loss of perspective? Well, that's hard to say. Such judgments are entirely subjective; it behooves all of us to remember that when we feel the urge to cast stones - myself included.

---

Interesting take... the distinction I'd make is that the guys who are the Eagles have talent and are creators of art. From nothing they made something. They played music regardless of the audience and the music became their livelihood.

The folks who flood youtube with music and picture which are not their own in a 'mash up' often do so in a vain attempt to gather 'fans' or 'viewers'.

I think my reference is really to the extremity of vanity. The people who think that if they own a cd, they somehow own the band. Or folks who think that they know what is best for a band or artist simply because they are fanatical about the band.

If Don Henley owned a big part of Colorado (like say 150,000 acres) and I was from there and I wanted to hunt on his land (hoping to land some food for my family, the enjoyment of the hunt, and nice set of antlers for my den) and if I just went on the land and did my thing and I was told to get off by his hired hand... I would go peacefully. It is his land. His property.

If I chose to contact Don and ask if I could hunt on his land, that I wanted to share the bounty of his place with my neighbors and friends for a picnic featuring the game from his place and he said "No." I might go to the local coffee shop and call him names like 'selfish, stupid, jerk, or having admired him for years, I might blame it on his land man or ranch hands for being self important jerks." I could do all of that, but, in the end, if I believe in the concept that someone can own something and have rights to it and be able to say who can and who can't use it... then I have to honor that and go find another place to hunt.

It isn't really vain to create something and sell it. I don't see the vanity in creating a song, singing it and seeing if the market will respond. I see the vanity in folks taking someone else's work and somehow using it for purposes that the artist did not request and does not want and yet somehow we claim rights to something we did not create.

If my daughter took a joyride in someone else's car, got caught and when she was removed from the car, some harsh language was used and it made her cry... I'd feel responsible for not teaching her better behavior but I surely wouldn't be too upset about the language....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bernie's bender

the distinction I'd make is that the guys who are the Eagles have talent and are creators of art

---

Your definition of vanity involves a lot of subjective judgments. Is it only vanity if the person is somehow unworthy (not talented enough, creative enough, etc.)? These are categories that, of course, the person making the judgments would not put himself into.

Vanity never sees itself...

Also, who defines art? Are the Marilyn prints by Andy Warhol art?

http://www.moma.org/collection/objec...bject_id=79737

Most would argue yes, but Marilyn Monroe never gave her permission. She was dead. Warhol's art was recreating altered versions of a publicity photo which was a still for a movie - basically, an official "screen shot." He did it for photos of Elvis, too, and other pop culture figures. He was lauded for it and his works hang in museums and sell for millions.

His painting of an existing photograph is very comparable to someone covering an existing song.... only he did his for profit, unlike some poor kid covering a song for fun, posting it on YouTube to share it with his friends, and never making a cent off of the original work (nor taking a cent from potential sales of the original artist).

But, one argues, Warhol's work was "great"! Those other guys aren't a fraction as talented - they're just wannabes! How dare anyone compare the two!

The only problem is that if we define "vanity" by whether or not a person is "talented" and if they have truly created "art," we fall into a trap. The subjectivity of art is undeniable, so using it to make moral judgments, using it to measure whether or not someone's behavior is "wicked".... that's very questionable, to say the least. Person X is more talented than Person Y, so Person X's actions aren't vain while Person Y's are... sorry, not buying it.

And while we're mulling that over, here's an interesting tale.

A young couple had an idea that for their wedding, they'd have the wedding party dance in to Chris Brown's song "Forever." Did they ask permission? No.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0[/ame]

Not everyone in their family could come. They uploaded the video to YouTube so that their family and friends who weren't there could get a look at it (obviously, the premise that all these people make such videos solely to get "fans" is flawed). Later, after the video garnered such attention, they used it to link to a site they created where one could donate to prevent domestic abuse.

It went viral. Got MILLIONS of hits, and still counting. And...

"Viral Wedding Video’s 10M Views Drive Chris Brown Buzz and Sales"

"While it’s great news and great fun for the happy couple, the video also seems to have had a halo effect for troubled singer Chris Brown [...] 'Forever,' despite being released last year, is now in the iTunes top 10."

It finally was parodied on a national television show, The Office. You can see that on Hulu.com.

Meanwhile, they happy couple were invited to do the talk show circuit!

The couple benefited, yes. So did YouTube, Google, The Office, NBC, every talk show they appeared on, and victims of domestic violence. Last but not least, so did original artist Chris Brown.

That's not even counting the benefit to millions of people who viewed the video and got a big smile on their face. :)

All because of some ordinary, average, "vain" folks who wickedly uploaded their copyright-violating video to YouTube.

I bet Chris Brown is glad he didn't insist this harmless video be taken down, because it's become a goldmine for him.

Arnel Pineda is a guy from the Philippines with a great voice. He uploaded to YouTube videos of himself singing covers, including Journey songs, with a cover band (The Zoo).

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ragdoUO6s5w[/ame]

Yes, it violated copyright.... so what did founding member of Journey Neal Schon do when he saw it? Did he make sure that copyright violating cover was immediately taken down?

Hardly. Schon asked Pineda to be their new lead singer.

Watch the whole story here:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89_2UivtEhs[/ame]

Pineda was dirt poor and singing to survive (literally). He was "vain" enough to upload that video, though, and his life has changed forever as a result. He's benefited; Journey's benefited; Journey's fans have benefited... and who's been hurt? No one.