Eagles & YouTube etc

[sodascouts]

You know, I wonder - does anyone really rip live audio from these concert videos onto their iPods? They're such poor quality! Many of them aren't even of the complete song.

Steph makes a good point that a very small percentage of video from concerts makes its way to YouTube. That's true not just for the Eagles, but for any concert I've gone to. I saw lots of people filming Lindsey Buckingham on their digital cameras in New Orleans, for instance, but when I go to YouTube, there's only one poor quality 90-second clip! That's it! And it's not because Lindsey's taken them down; he doesn't care about them. It's just most folks don't take the time and trouble to upload their videos. They're taking them for themselves, as "souvenirs."

The Eagles are getting themselves all worked up over something that's not even that big of a problem. Certainly it has not caused a catastrophic loss of ticket sales, as all who have gone to their shows can attest! They're still able to charge a massive amount of money and sell out crowds. This has no ill affect on them. I really don't see why they make such a big deal about it.

I really don't really believe there's anyone out there going, "Well, I was planning on spending $200 to see the Eagles live, but now that I can see poor quality clips of a few songs on YouTube, I'll save my money!"

If the Eagles believe that this is a common mentality and that YouTube videos of live shows are causing them to lose tons of money in ticket sales, they're out of touch with the attitude of the typical fan. The typical fan does not go to a show just to hear/see music live. The typical fan goes for the larger experience. Otherwise, they'd just stay at home and watch Farewell 1.

I truly don't believe those videos have adversely affected ticket sales AT ALL.

If anyone can find proof that these videos have indeed negatively impacted ticket sales, please, feel free to link to it.

I do think the vanity angle is an issue. I can sympathize with that - I wouldn't like to have videos of me online where I felt I looked bad. However, the vast majority of these videos are fawned over by fans, many of whom believe the guys look great in them. I think they might be too hard on themselves there. Just because they look older doesn't mean they don't look good.

Of course, as I've said elsewhere, despite the fact that I feel they're making a mountain out of a molehill, I do respect their wishes and refrain from filming the band. I don't want to distract or upset them, so I also discourage others from taking videos during their shows.

I think if they sweetly and in good humor request that people not film, they will get fewer people to video without garnering any ill will. Realistically, though, they will never get universal cooperation no matter what they say, and I just wish they would accept that and not let it affect their performance.

[WalshFan88]

I agree Soda.

I posted my thoughts on YouTube along with some other things I didn't like in the AC thread but I'll say it again - I think it's over the top with their trying to control it.

[TimothyBFan]

You know, I wonder - does anyone really rip live audio from these concert videos onto their iPods? They're such poor quality! Many of them aren't even of the complete song.

I do!! I do!!! Seriously, I do and not just Eagles stuff but a lot of them from other bands, ripped from YouTube. I am selective on the quality tho before putting them on there.

I've made myself perfectly clear how I feel about their attitude towards filming, picture taking, etc... To be honest, I seriously think that is the reason a group like the Eagles have only a couple of really good fansites---the fear that that might be "illegal" also. KWIM? Soda--I'm sure you can answer this--- aren't there probably all kinds of guidelines on doing a fansite of this caliber.... dos and don'ts?

It still amazes me just how different bands can be regarding their attitude about YouTube and the internet. I just think that bands that have the we don't care attitude or ham it up to the fans that have a camera pointed at them, or play off the audience, knowing they are being filmed are definitely considered more "fan friendly" than bands that will say something in the middle of a song to make someone stop filming. JMO!

[sodascouts]

I do!! I do!!! Seriously, I do and not just Eagles stuff but a lot of them from other bands, ripped from YouTube. I am selective on the quality tho before putting them on there.

Ok. Would you otherwise have spent money on buying live tracks if you hadn't been able to rip these? Would you have bought a ticket to a live show if these hadn't been available? In other words, have the Eagles lost potential revenue as a result?

I've made myself perfectly clear how I feel about their attitude towards filming, picture taking, etc... To be honest, I seriously think that is the reason a group like the Eagles have only a couple of really good fansites---the fear that that might be "illegal" also. KWIM? Soda--I'm sure you can answer this--- aren't there probably all kinds of guidelines on doing a fansite of this caliber.... dos and don'ts?

There is no rule book per se. However, if the Eagles wanted to, they could unleash their high-priced lawyers on me and right or wrong, I would not be able to afford to fight them. Heck, if I knew Glenn loathed the site and wanted it wiped from existence, I would be so heartbroken that I wouldn't have much will to fight despite all the blood, sweat, tears, time, and money I have spent on this labor of love over the years. So far they have not chosen to take legal action against me. I think that's because when it comes down to it, these guys really do appreciate their fans, and have a sense of fairness and decency.

[Topkat]

Soda, I agree with pretty much all you said, except maybe the "vanity issue" which I honestly don't believe is an issue for them.

Yes, most of the concert video is crappy & not full songs & I don't think many people rip music from them for their Ipod, but people do Rip the music from the "Official Video" of a song, where you do get the good quality & the full song.
I still also believe this does not take away from their cd sales or concert attendance...I just think it's more the copyright issue.

VA, I have to disagree with you in the issue of young artists not making the money that the Eagles made....Some of these young kids are VERY RICH. Not all of them, but a lot are. It all depends on the management & this was the same issue that happened in the past. Some bands got ripped off, while others made tons of money. It's all in the way they are handled.
I don't think the YouTube stuff has much effect on how much money a band makes. The live experience is always something that a fan wants. New young acts don't seem to have any problem selling out stadiums these days. These are probably acts that we Eagles fans wouldn't see, but they have their own audience....What really amazes me is how some of them"lipsync" and totally get away with it. People paying for a live show that is mostly a lot of dancing, & pyrotechnics! The music business keeps changing....That's for sure!

[TimothyBFan]

Ok. Would you otherwise have spent money on buying live tracks if you hadn't been able to rip these? Would you have bought a ticket to a live show if these hadn't been available? In other words, have the Eagles lost potential revenue as a result?

I don't know how to answer this because I buy so much music and I also rip from YouTube (hanging head in shame) and I use to attend a lot more concerts than I do now but yes, I have spent and do spend TONS of money, probably a lot more than I should, on music related stuff. I just want it ALL!!!! Does that give me a free pass to do this illegally also?

[sodascouts]

Well, I love ya, Willie, but no. If something is commercially available, you should buy it. That's the right thing to do.

I know times are hard, but a single song off of iTunes or a subscription service is just the price of a bottle of soda. Now, when they don't make them available that way and want to force you to buy the whole album just for one song, I know it can be tempting to just rip the song, but I still don't think it's right.

I make an exception for out of print and/or live material, neither of which can be purchased. That's also what I put on the site. If those become commercially available, I take them down. If the Eagles put some of the live clips I currently have online in their DVD retrospective, I'll take those down as well.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

As a software person, I can relate to the copyright issue. At one time it was a real problem, people using software they didn't pay for. It really did mean the difference between people being employed or laid off.

Software people rule when it comes to anything to do with computers. We can control it all if we want to. After years of being ripped off, there are two types of software. Freeware, which doesn't always work and almost always offers to allow you to pay for a version that does. It also comes with plenty of advertisements that are annoying, not to mention toolbars and search engines that try to take over your computer.

The other type is things like MS Office. This is a high priced suite of products and can actually cost more than the computer. A high portion of the cost is the security built in to keep it from being illegally copied and hacked. So I, as an honest consumer, am paying more than a hundred dollars extra to keep me honest and prevent security leaks/hackers from getting into my private data.

At the moment, there isn't much the music industry can do to protect themselves. Perhaps they'll come up with something. All the ad revenue generated on YouTube (and the freeware used to rip the audio and video off of it) goes in someone else's pocket. They are making huge amounts of money off the backs of musicians that aren't getting any of the revenue. Which makes it all even worse IMO.

YouTube isn't a bad thing, and it wasn't originally designed for this sort of thing. Part of the project I work on is having a YouTube channel for soldiers to reference for a lot of different things to help them out. So I wouldn't want anyone (especially my boss) to think I want YouTube to go away.

[sodascouts]

The destruction of YouTube would actually HURT many musicians. Yeah, it wouldn't hurt the established ones like the Eagles who don't need the exposure (as Don sarcastically reminded us Saturday). However, it would hurt the struggling ones who do benefit from the exposure YouTube gives them. If the successful old-guard musicians sue YouTube out of business, it's the struggling new musicians who will suffer.

[TimothyBFan]

Well, I love ya, Willie, but no. If something is commercially available, you should buy it. That's the right thing to do.

I know times are hard, but a single song off of iTunes or a subscription service is just the price of a bottle of soda. Now, when they don't make them available that way and want to force you to buy the whole album just for one song, I know it can be tempting to just rip the song, but I still don't think it's right.

I make an exception for out of print and/or live material, neither of which can be purchased. That's also what I put on the site. If those become commercially available, I take them down. If the Eagles put some of the live clips I currently have online in their DVD retrospective, I'll take those down as well.

Looking at my iTunes, I'd say at least 90-95% of the stuff I've gotten off of YouTube is NOT commercially available. It's stupid, but I will get 10 versions of the same song from 10 different shows--again, I want it ALL!! Of course I went out and bought FW1 & HFO, etc.... So I guess I would say that yes, I do buy it that way if it's available to me. All you have to do is look at my iTunes and Amazon mp3 downloads to verify that. And I'm one who likes my hard copies of stuff, so I am very apt to buy cds/dvds---usually I buy those off of ebay or half.com so they are preowned but I can get a better price because I do buy so many.

I don't see that this is any different than getting all the bootlegs out there that people sell. Am I wrong? I own lots of those as a lot of other people here do also. Someone as filmed them illegally and then just sold them. Or how about those who trade bootlegs? What's the difference? Am I missing something?