Led Zeppelin Copyright Idiocy

[bunnerabb]

They were a good band.

They moved a lot of records.

They reunited.

They did some shows, people shot some shitty mobile phone footage of them, their label didn;t want 239475902793487548 people being able to perceive their artists in that light, they pulled them. Meh. Buy the t-shirt. Wait for the DVD.

[RockDog]

Originally Posted by andsonic

The exchange above is exactly why I posted this thread in the first place.

Internet culture is about the fans controlling the media. That's the deal with digg.com, etc. It's all peer pressure

Those who are members of the "Internet Generation". The mighty LZ may or may not need more promotion. I would just like to point out that Prince got a nice career boost from the Superbowl and all the "pirated" video clips on Youtube.

Zep has a significant reputation as a trailblazing band of the '60's and '70's. Their reunions have been a mixed bag. The youtube clips did 3 things.
1) They let a larger audience see a one-off show, that may not happen again and was not televised.
2) They showed that Page could still play. Many would doubt that fact when seeing other "recent" performances.
3) It proved that Zep is still relevant.

This may seem like something from left field, but JK Rowling has learned to enjoy/respect all the fan fiction being generated. Even though it violates copyright. I would dare say that her publisher is coming round to the same conclusion. They're noticing that it adds value to their product.

As far as Zep is concerned: I would not have thought to buy a (possible) DVD if there had been no clips on YouTube. Now I'm planning on it.

and oh, btw Jake Holmes wrote "Dazed and Confused".

i think led zep did this for a bit of fun not to sell dvd's or promote an upcoming tour
nor doe's jimmy really care if people can think he can play still or not cause he can!
and i dont think there looking for VALUE TO THERE PRODUCT lol your talking about led zep 40 years famous not 10 years like jk rowling SHE IS A BOOK WRITER not a classic hard rock band of the stature of led zepp
and your missing the point after 40 years they deserve the respect not to post vid clips without there say so ITS THERE RIGHT AND NOT SOME SNOTTY NOSED KIDS
these guys are old enough to be our grandfathers and there on stage rocking out again now leave them alone and show some RESPECT
THEY 40 YEARS DESERVE IT

you must of read that jake holmes book alot

[Duardo]

I agree the interested parties have a legal right to control their performances, etc.
but on the other hand, Grateful Dead attribute a lot of their success to the fact that they allowed bootlegs.

You don't really need to say "on the other hand"...yes, they allowed bootlegging. That was within their control. But they definitely made it very clear (as do other bands that allow taping) what those recordings could and couldn't be used for.

[andsonic]

you must of read that jake holmes book alot

Actually, ironically enough, I saw a clip of a Yardbirds' French TV performance of "Dazed & confused" on Youtube. It was very cool to see very early formative performance of a LZ classic.

There was a link to a Jake? Holmes magazine article about the " copyright controversy" in the comments section.

Flame Suit On: I think the JK Rowling example is exactly on point. She is one of the richest women in the world (worth more then Elizabeth II). She is a rockstar in the book world who has sales are astronomical. She is arguably one of the most sucessful and influential entertainers in the past 10 years. I think you can directly compare her status now to Zep's status in 1980.

But to my original point in my last post. It's a cultural divide.

and show some RESPECT
THEY 40 YEARS DESERVE IT

Many of us would say we're showing huge respect by posting those clips.

IMHOP the bottom line is the youtube clips only helped. In no way was LZ's rep damaged by them. In no way did LZ, the Warner Music Group, and the Ahmet Ertegun estate lose any money or value from those clips.

On the contrary, they exposed a band, that against all odds, performed near the height of their powers, to a generation of fans who weren't even a twinkle in their parents' eyes when Bonzo died.

That is a very very good thing. thumbsup
I have no more to say on this topic.

[bunnerabb]

Many of us would say we're showing huge respect by posting those clips.

Nah.

They dragged a recording device into a concert that prohibits them, and says so.

They made a shitty video, slapped it up on a server they don't run, don't own and don't pay for and have no say in as to the legality of the content, thereupon, .. it took about a half dozen mouse clicks.

That's respect?

That isn't even cleaning your fingernails. That's silly. They didn't DO anything, they didn't CREATE anything, they just jacked some grainy shit from a phone into a box and sent it to another box.

They slapped a button.

Some people don't want you using their work to slap a button and "contribute".

Saying "OK, cool" is respect.

You'd be amazed at how many "geezers" can get by without some bullshit, "Look what I did, ma!" mouse click respect.

[Duardo]

Many of us would say we're showing huge respect by posting those clips.

Doesn't really matter whether you think you're showing huge respect or not...they're not your clips to post. If you're going against the wishes of the copyright owner then you are showing them disrespect.

IMHOP the bottom line is the youtube clips only helped. In no way was LZ's rep damaged by them. In no way did LZ, the Warner Music Group, and the Ahmet Ertegun estate lose any money or value from those clips.

How do you know that they didn't lose any money? What if people who saw those clips were disappointed by the quality of the clips and don't even, say, give the DVD a chance when (if) it's released thinking that they know what the quality will be like?

Or how about those who don't know better who think "well, if it's all up on You Tube why even bother with the DVD" who otherwise may have purchased it?

On the contrary, they exposed a band, that against all odds, performed near the height of their powers, to a generation of fans who weren't even a twinkle in their parents' eyes when Bonzo died.

My guess is that most of the people who saw those clips had already been exposed to the band (and for those who haven't already been, in relation to the issue above...what if this is their first exposure to the band and they're put off by the quality of what they see and don't even bother to listen to any of their albums or check out any of their existing concert footage?). There was some footage that was officially released as well so people could get a taste of the show and hopefully encourage them to pick up the DVD or tickets to the tour when and if either becomes available, or any of the legally-available recordings and videos of the band out there.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you in theory...I think that YouTube is a great avenue for exposure...but that doesn't chance the fact that if the band doesn't feel that its the optimal vehicle for them they should be able to have recordings of their band removed from the site, regardless of what "we" may think.

[RockDog]

Originally Posted by andsonic

Actually, ironically enough, I saw a clip of a Yardbirds' French TV performance of "Dazed & confused" on Youtube. It was very cool to see very early formative performance of a LZ classic.

There was a link to a Jake? Holmes magazine article about the " copyright controversy" in the comments section.

Flame Suit On: I think the JK Rowling example is exactly on point. She is one of the richest women in the world (worth more then Elizabeth II). She is a rockstar in the book world who has sales are astronomical. She is arguably one of the most sucessful and influential entertainers in the past 10 years. I think you can directly compare her status now to Zep's status in 1980.

But to my original point in my last post. It's a cultural divide.

Many of us would say we're showing huge respect by posting those clips.

IMHOP the bottom line is the youtube clips only helped. In no way was LZ's rep damaged by them. In no way did LZ, the Warner Music Group, and the Ahmet Ertegun estate lose any money or value from those clips.

On the contrary, they exposed a band, that against all odds, performed near the height of their powers, to a generation of fans who weren't even a twinkle in their parents' eyes when Bonzo died.

That is a very very good thing. thumbsup
I have no more to say on this topic.

jk rowling is not a entertainer she is just a writer as good as she is an successful
other people are responsable for making entertainment out of it on the big screen
as rich as she is she dont own the crown jewels ''priceless''
and is no where near a comparison to led zep who are writers musicans entertainers in one
an rockstar of the bookworld? ok maybe she is but id still rather have been robert plant or jimmy page '''a little bit more exciting i think'''

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by Duardo

Doesn't really matter whether you think you're showing huge respect or not...they're not your clips to post. If you're going against the wishes of the copyright owner then you are showing them disrespect.


.

actually, they are your clips. the legal issue is that your clip is an unauthorized derivative work, in that the owner of the underlying rights, i.e. the band whose songs they are, has not authorized you to make a film of the performance, and certainly has not authorized the republication of the performance by third parties in any medium.

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by RockDog

jk rowling is not a entertainer she is just a writer as good as she is an successful
other people are responsable for making entertainment out of it on the big screen
as rich as she is she dont own the crown jewels

i know that the foregoing was in service to your point about preferring the success of the type zeppelin had to rowling's more subdued success, but you shat on your delivery by making the statement quoted above, which is wrong in many ways (yeah, of course she's an entertainer; that should be obvious!!! and yeah, her ownership in the rights to those books, characters and the like give her control over who can make films, action figures, and any ancillary products derived therefrom, which is another way of saying that "she DO own the crown jewels"!!!).

[Duardo]

actually, they are your clips. the legal issue is that your clip is an unauthorized derivative work, in that the owner of the underlying rights, i.e. the band whose songs they are, has not authorized you to make a film of the performance, and certainly has not authorized the republication of the performance by third parties in any medium.

I think we're saying the same thing...they may be your clips, but they're not yours to post.

[RockDog]

Originally Posted by vixapphire

i know that the foregoing was in service to your point about preferring the success of the type zeppelin had to rowling's more subdued success, but you shat on your delivery by making the statement quoted above, which is wrong in many ways (yeah, of course she's an entertainer; that should be obvious!!! and yeah, her ownership in the rights to those books, characters and the like give her control over who can make films, action figures, and any ancillary products derived therefrom, which is another way of saying that "she DO own the crown jewels"!!!).

she is not a entertainer in the word she is a writer or ''novelist''
kiss have control over who makes action figures an the like too
and she is the 136th richest person in britain
the 13th richest women in britain thats 12 under queen elizibeth 2
just thought id correct you and andsonic there
lets get back on the subject of original post

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by olivia_nb

Grateful Dead attribute a lot of their success to the fact that they allowed bootlegs..

Only the tapers attribute that. The band, who I worked with from time to time, was wildly successful long before bootlegs were being circulated. They only allowed taping after a recurring problem with tapers beating up fans who happened to buy a ticket in a spot that was good for taping came up.

I heard this directly from the horse's mouth.

[Kris]

Who you calling a horse?!?!?

[andsonic]

the 13th richest women in britain thats 12 under queen elizibeth 2
just thought id correct you and andsonic there
lets get back on the subject of original post

Actually it's the other way around:
CBBC Newsround | UK | Potter author UK's richest woman

IMHOP It's a completely fair analogy. I think you (repectfully) have your head in the sand if you are unaware of the degree of influence & impact Ms. Rowling has had in the entertainment field in the past 10-12 years. It's comletely fair to compare the active careers of JKR to the mighty LZ (and they are mighty).

I understand the point that those who create should control access to their works. IMHOP LZ had nothing to do with the clips being pulled down. My kneejerk opinion is that a legal flunky working for WMG had their own kneejerk reaction, viz: "Zep didn't explicitly authorise those clips, so they must be a violation of copyright." IMHOP nobody in the ZEP/WMG camp was looking at the big picture. JK Rowling/Scholastic did. I would also point out that Star Trek/Paramount has (not to mention the Grateful Dead).

My point is that the "kids" these days want to participate in the process. So we have Harry Potter fan fiction. We have endless youtube mashups of Star Wars vs Star Trak vs Battlestar Galactica vs The Hobbit.
And we have folks posting clips of recent concerts they've gone to.
Some originators of media are embracing this. Some aren't.
Personally I'd rather Zep be in the same corner as JK Rowling and Paramount et al then be lumped in with Metallica.

I'm out

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by RockDog

she is not a entertainer in the word she is a writer or ''novelist''
kiss have control over who makes action figures an the like too
and she is the 136th richest person in britain
the 13th richest women in britain thats 12 under queen elizibeth 2
just thought id correct you and andsonic there
lets get back on the subject of original post

gotcha, although there is probably room for someone more pedantic than you or i to find some room for disagreement if they tried.

[vixapphire]

does IMHOP mean "in my house of pancakes"?

[andsonic]

does IMHOP mean "in my house of pancakes"?

Yes, I'm feeling quite hungry right now.

Actually:
"In My Humble Opinion..."

[jeremy.c.]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Only the tapers attribute that. The band, who I worked with from time to time, was wildly successful long before bootlegs were being circulated. They only allowed taping after a recurring problem with tapers beating up fans who happened to buy a ticket in a spot that was good for taping came up.

I heard this directly from the horse's mouth.

I'm not going to make any rebuttal to your claim, I believe you, but let me also quote the horse's mouth, and this by no means should indicate that Barlow speaks for all past and present members of the Dead...
2.03: The Economy of Ideas

Familiarity Has More Value than Scarcity.
With physical goods, there is a direct correlation between scarcity and value. Gold is more valuable than wheat, even though you can't eat it. While this is not always the case, the situation with information is often precisely the reverse. Most soft goods increase in value as they become more common. Familiarity is an important asset in the world of information. It may often be true that the best way to raise demand for your product is to give it away.
While this has not always worked with shareware, it could be argued that there is a connection between the extent to which commercial software is pirated and the amount which gets sold. Broadly pirated software, such as Lotus 1-2-3 or WordPerfect, becomes a standard and benefits from Law of Increasing Returns based on familiarity.
In regard to my own soft product, rock 'n' roll songs, there is no question that the band I write them for, the Grateful Dead, has increased its popularity enormously by giving them away. We have been letting people tape our concerts since the early seventies, but instead of reducing the demand for our product, we are now the largest concert draw in America, a fact that is at least in part attributable to the popularity generated by those tapes.
True, I don't get any royalties on the millions of copies of my songs which have been extracted from concerts, but I see no reason to complain. The fact is, no one but the Grateful Dead can perform a Grateful Dead song, so if you want the experience and not its thin projection, you have to buy a ticket from us. In other words, our intellectual property protection derives from our being the only real-time source of it.

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by andsonic

Yes, I'm feeling quite hungry right now.

Actually:
"In My Humble Opinion..."

what's the "P" stand for? is it "in my humble opinion, pr!ck!!!"?

that would be pretty funny!

[RockDog]

Originally Posted by vixapphire

gotcha, although there is probably room for someone more pedantic than you or i to find some room for disagreement if they tried.

your actually wrong but wateva

[andsonic]

Well this is totally from left field but...

Handel's The Messiah includes a section (song) called "For Unto Us A Child Is Born" which is getting a lot of airplay right about now. It being the holiday season, etc. It's pretty standard Christmas Carol fair (I've heard it umpteen times in malls since November).

My point is that Handel ripped of the entire "Song" from some forgotten Italian composer. He changed one line! Who do we remember as the composer? Handel!

The Old Masters used to "quote" each other all the time. The modern concept of copyright in music has only been around since the 20th century.

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by RockDog

your actually wrong but wateva

had you said she's not a "performer", than yeah, i'd be wrong to disagree. except you didn't. whatev