Eagles & YouTube etc

[Topkat]

This is so complicated, let the lawyers figure it out. That's what they get paid for! LOL I guess every situation is different & if something gets yanked off YouTube, the lawyers have found a way to do it. I guess this is why most artists have just accepted it & don't bother with all this. Just the job of having people constantly troll YT & pay lawyers to do this maybe just isn't worth it.

[sodascouts]

You can get a video yanked as easy as pie. You don't even have to prove you're the copyright holder unless the user fights back - it's "guilty until proven innocent." It's easier for YouTube to just assume the uploader is in the wrong and take down the video than go to the trouble of investigating each instance.

That's how Joe's lawyers were able to get the Stevie Nicks video taken down, although he had no rights to it whatsoever, nor did he take any of the photos that were used in the song and therefore he had no rights to them either.

As the above demonstrates, the record companies and some artists can take advantage of the "guilty until proven innocent" policy by submitting claims on anything that is even remotely connected to them, sometimes not even watching the video first and just assuming it probably violates copyright. Some just do automated searches and file claims against everything that has certain keywords in it. All of it gets taken down right away. This has led to a lot of mistakes. Here's a recent example:

NASA Video Taken Down by False Copyright Claim

[TimothyBFan]

How confusing and in a lot of cases, over the top it sounds like. I just want to hear the music and watch the videos!!!

[sodascouts]

YouTube does try to cover its rear end and accommodate copyright holders. However, many artists won't be happy until YouTube previews every video to ensure it doesn't violate copyright before it is made available, thus relieving artists of the burden of policing YouTube themselves. Such policing costs artists time and trouble, and incurs ill will from fans. For instance, Don Henley's mass-purging of videos turned the words "Cass County Music" into curse words among YouTube users (this one, this one, this one , this one, and this one are a few examples; although the latter is apparently not exactly an intellectual giant, his emotions ring true for many.) Henley's purges achieved a level of infamy that has otherwise only been reached by record companies and corporations.

Artists like Don Henley want YouTube to be held accountable - ie, liable - for any copyrighted material it hosts without the copyright holder's explicit consent. While making life easier for the artists, this would create a catastrophic situation for YouTube as it currently exists, and would force it to make fundamental changes that would probably eventually lead to the site losing its popularity and relevance a la Napster. While this outcome is of course perfectly acceptable to the artists in question, the legal precedents that would be set and the legislation that would be required to put this into action has so far had Constitutionally unacceptable collateral damage for the rest of us.

[Topkat]

Wow, watching that video & seeing the comments under it is the stuff I see all over YouTube under comments of Eagles songs, only worse. It seems there is a lot of hatred for Mr. Henley regarding this subject. In fact, looks like they have lost some people who had previously been fans.....That's not good.
They even take down anyone doing a cover of a song.

I don't even know what to say about it. I just think it's a shame, but Henley stands behind what he says. Even if it's not just Don doing this, and other members of the Eagles are also involved, Don seems to be the one taking the hit for it because he has been the most outspoken about it.

I just wish things were different, but things aren't likely to change.

[StephUK]

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.

I agreed with you, and did think about including these points in my post at the start of this thread.
I'm sure if the Eagles were just starting out today, struggling to get gigs and make a living then they would use YouTube(and other social media) to promote themselves to the public. These things weren't around when they started, but I bet they used all the available media to promote themselves and their albums & shows; and wanted music mags to review their albums & live shows.

If the Eagles continue this legal battle they'll be harming the music business NOT protecting it.

[StephUK]

Wow, watching that video & seeing the comments under it is the stuff I see all over YouTube under comments of Eagles songs, only worse. It seems there is a lot of hatred for Mr. Henley regarding this subject. In fact, looks like they have lost some people who had previously been fans.....That's not good.
They even take down anyone doing a cover of a song.

In addition to this, I wonder how much this is costing Don and/or the Eagles in legal fees? maybe more than they're allegedly losing in ticket sales

[Topkat]

Quote StephUK

In addition to this, I wonder how much this is costing Don and/or the Eagles in legal fees? maybe more than they're allegedly losing in ticket sales

Do you really think this is costing them in ticket sales? I don't. They hardly even do many concerts, so the ones they do will sell out. It may actually be costing them in cd & dvd sales because it seems some people are so against Don's actions that they refuse to support the Eagles music in any way...
Of course it doesn't affect the hard core fans, but some people seem to be totally turned off by them.

[Tiffanny Twisted]

I was interested in the 'vanity' angle, as surely if you're saying that they don't to be filmed because 'they don't look their best' then that's like saying that some nights they don't make the effort to look their best for the fans. Which is surely short-changing the fans who've paid big bucks to see them? Why should I see an Eagle in (for example) an un-ironed shirt just because I see the show on Wednesday and not Thursday? I would have thought their insistence on sound perfection would apply to perfection in other areas of the show too.

I'm trying to remember if I actually read it, or imagined that, the Eagles filmed every show that they did. If they did, then the vanity issue wouldn't apply as a reason for them to not want the audience to film them. I know Barry Manilow films all his shows, and he's now made the archive public, though you have to subscribe. http://www.manilowarchives.com/
(Not sure if you get to see the whole show, or just some of it.)
The possible drawback to the Eagles doing this sort of thing is that I think they have a more limited number of songs to choose from than Barry.

ETA: After doing a bit more I think the 'videoed every show' came from something I read about them issuing the 40th anniversary DVD.

Ok when I said in another thread about not looking their best it had nothing to do with ironed or unironed shirts. I ment. If it is a professional videographer , then they will always look great cause of the quality of the equipment being used and the talent of the people taking it.
Mot on someones cell phone or home movie camera..Thats what I ment.
They especially seem to be concerned about how they look on camera or pictures taken of them for that matter.
TT

[StephUK]

Quote StephUK

Do you really think this is costing them in ticket sales? I don't. They hardly even do many concerts, so the ones they do will sell out. It may actually be costing them in cd & dvd sales because it seems some people are so against Don's actions that they refuse to support the Eagles music in any way...
Of course it doesn't affect the hard core fans, but some people seem to be totally turned off by them.

Topkat, I did say 'allegedly' losing them in tickets sales. I was being ironic!! I don't believe they lose either. I haven't seen that many empty seats at the shows I've been to.