Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...

[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. 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.

[Freypower]

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.

[MikeA]

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!

[bernie's bender]

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.

[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.

[Shadowland07]

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

[bernie's bender]

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....

[sodascouts]

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.

[sodascouts]

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.

[sodascouts]

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.