Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...

[sodascouts]

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.

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.

[MikeA]

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?"

[bernie's bender]

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?

[MikeA]

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.

[bernie's bender]

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...

[EagleLady]

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.

[MikeA]

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>

[Freypower]

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.

[MikeA]

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>

[sodascouts]

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.

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.