Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...

[Troubadour]

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!

[EagleLady]

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

[Freypower]

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.

[MikeA]

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.

[bernie's bender]

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.

[RamboIV]

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.

[bernie's bender]

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.

[sodascouts]

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.

[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.

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.

[bernie's bender]

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...