In other news (apolitical thread)...

[utee94]

I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be paid royalties for streaming their music or that people should get their music free or anything like that.  I do think it's bush-league to copyright strike content creators for the crime of showcasing their music and trying to teach young kids how to play their songs, or have discussions where they listen to piece of it and then comment on what's going on and what they like about it, which is what some music-appreciation channels are all about. 

I'd also be interested for you to further detail how you differentiate between what the Eagles do, and Metallica suing Napster users for distributing/collecting their music for free and without consent.  Metallica was effectively doing the same thing The Eagles do.....using the force of law to stop people from listening to their music without paying for it.  I assume there's something else going on that sets the cases apart, in your view. 

Definitely something else going on-- they sued their fans en masse.  That is enough distinction for me.  If you find the cases identical, that's up to you.  I, do not.

[utee94]

As for the rest of it, if what you're stating is true, and I have no reason to believe it's not, then the Eagles are taking actions that can ultimately limit their appeal to a broader audience.  It's perhaps not the wisest course of action, if the goal is longevity of their music, or to be appreciated in pepetuity.  But I also don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with it.  If they don't want to support that kind of activity, then that's their choice.

[MikeDeTiger]

As for the rest of it, if what you're stating is true, and I have no reason to believe it's not, then the Eagles are taking actions that can ultimately limit their appeal to a broader audience.  It's perhaps not the wisest course of action, if the goal is longevity of their music, or to be appreciated in pepetuity.  But I also don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with it.  If they don't want to support that kind of activity, then that's their choice.

I agree.  I'd go a different way than what they've chosen, but they are within their rights as I understand them.  Seems like somebody would be pointing out to them that they're missing an opportunity to expand their market in their later years, but either that's not happening or they don't care.  That's fair, and totally up to them.  

[utee94]

I agree.  I'd go a different way than what they've chosen, but they are within their rights as I understand them.  Seems like somebody would be pointing out to them that they're missing an opportunity to expand their market in their later years, but either that's not happening or they don't care.  That's fair, and totally up to them. 

Yeah I'd have to assume they just don't care.

But also seems silly to limit access in that kind of way.  If it were proven that allowing that kind of access becomes a slippery slope toward stolen or genericized IP, then I suppose I could see the reason in their approach.  But as you point out, tons of artists allow it, and as far as I know it hasn't resulted in them losing any of their IP or the revenue generated from it, in any meanginful or significant way. 

Crotchety old farts is the most likely diagnosis, I think.

[betarhoalphadelta]

I don't think the Eagles situation and the Metallica situation are remotely similar. 

In the Metallica situation, the entirety of what was happening was large-scale music theft. Granted, music theft has always been around (i.e. someone could always easily dub a tape or burn a CD and give it to a friend). But it wasn't at a scale where it was worth trying to find and fight, nor was it centralized and possible to go after large entities (like Napster).  

Metallica suffered blowback from the "all art should be freeeeeee" crowd, and from people who maybe weren't ideological but just didn't want to pay for music. But it sounds to me like that's not utee, since he said he supports the idea that artists should be paid for their work. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

I agree.  I'd go a different way than what they've chosen, but they are within their rights as I understand them.  Seems like somebody would be pointing out to them that they're missing an opportunity to expand their market in their later years, but either that's not happening or they don't care.  That's fair, and totally up to them. 

Not necessarily. The bounds of "fair use" in copyright law would likely 100% protect someone like a YouTube music teacher doing guitar instruction on Eagles songs, or someone like Rick Beato doing a "what makes this song great" piece. 

But when you do that, and the Eagles' lawyer sends you a takedown request, you have to decide whether it's worth fighting or just taking something down and avoiding the headache. Even if you're right, and what you're doing is 100% lawful, it's probably not worth fighting. 

I haven't followed this, but if the Eagles are sending out a lot of nuisance takedown requests, that wouldn't actually stand up in court, I think you can make an argument that what they're doing is ethically wrong.  

[Honestbuckeye]

Yeah I'd have to assume they just don't care.

But also seems silly to limit access in that kind of way.  If it were proven that allowing that kind of access becomes a slippery slope toward stolen or genericized IP, then I suppose I could see the reason in their approach.  But as you point out, tons of artists allow it, and as far as I know it hasn't resulted in them losing any of their IP or the revenue generated from it, in any meanginful or significant way. 

Crotchety old farts is the most likely diagnosis, I think.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crotchety

[utee94]

I don't think the Eagles situation and the Metallica situation are remotely similar.

In the Metallica situation, the entirety of what was happening was large-scale music theft. Granted, music theft has always been around (i.e. someone could always easily dub a tape or burn a CD and give it to a friend). But it wasn't at a scale where it was worth trying to find and fight, nor was it centralized and possible to go after large entities (like Napster). 

Metallica suffered blowback from the "all art should be freeeeeee" crowd, and from people who maybe weren't ideological but just didn't want to pay for music. But it sounds to me like that's not utee, since he said he supports the idea that artists should be paid for their work.

Yup you should pay for music.  You should also not sue your fanbase en masse.  There were other ways Metallica could have gone about things, but they buckled under pressure from their labels and went directly after the fans.

[utee94]

Not necessarily. The bounds of "fair use" in copyright law would likely 100% protect someone like a YouTube music teacher doing guitar instruction on Eagles songs, or someone like Rick Beato doing a "what makes this song great" piece.

But when you do that, and the Eagles' lawyer sends you a takedown request, you have to decide whether it's worth fighting or just taking something down and avoiding the headache. Even if you're right, and what you're doing is 100% lawful, it's probably not worth fighting.

I haven't followed this, but if the Eagles are sending out a lot of nuisance takedown requests, that wouldn't actually stand up in court, I think you can make an argument that what they're doing is ethically wrong. 

I'm no IP lawyer, but I have taken a couple of courses in IP law, and I'm not sure this is correct.

Fair use for educational purposes has typically centered on short excerpts used for teaching specific ideas in a face to face setting, but it wouldn't necessarily cover what we're talking about here.  The difference is scale-- both in the amount of work being used for educational purposes (a small excerpt versus an entire copyrighted work), and the reach (teaching a small class of learners face to face, versus the global reach of a broadly available internet platform).

And if that YouTube channel is monetized for its creator then I'd think fair use claims get especially murky.

[utee94]

Just looked it up, here's what AI had to say about it...

Yes, the U.S. Copyright Act's Fair Use Doctrine (Section 107) may allow music instructors to use copyrighted music without permission for educational purposes, but it is not a blanket exemption. Fair use is decided on a case-by-case basis, generally allowing small, transformative excerpts for analysis, but rarely covering the copying of entire works. 


Key Considerations for Fair Use in Music Education:

• Purpose & Amount: Using small excerpts for commentary, criticism, or analysis is more likely to be fair use than using the entire, original work.
• Educational Setting: Section 110(1) allows for face-to-face performance of copyrighted music in non-profit educational settings, but this does not authorize copying, distributing, or uploading the music to the internet.
• Four Factors: Courts consider the purpose (non-profit/educational), nature of the work, amount used, and the effect on the market value.
• Safety Rule: Never assume usage is fair; when in doubt, especially for for-profit instruction, obtain permission. 
  
  

Common Misconceptions & Limits:

• Copying for Students: Making multiple copies of a copyrighted song for a class is generally not considered fair use.
• Arrangements: You cannot make a new arrangement (e.g., changing the style) of a copyrighted work without permission, even for your own ensemble, if it changes the fundamental melody.
• Digital Distribution: Posting copyrighted music on a website or learning management system often violates copyright, even for educational use. 
  
  

[Gigem]

I think Lars was the main one pushing back against Napster. The other guys didn’t seem so passionate about it. 

This was about 1999, details are way fuzzy. 

[MikeDeTiger]

Not necessarily. The bounds of "fair use" in copyright law would likely 100% protect someone like a YouTube music teacher doing guitar instruction on Eagles songs, or someone like Rick Beato doing a "what makes this song great" piece.

But when you do that, and the Eagles' lawyer sends you a takedown request, you have to decide whether it's worth fighting or just taking something down and avoiding the headache. Even if you're right, and what you're doing is 100% lawful, it's probably not worth fighting.

I haven't followed this, but if the Eagles are sending out a lot of nuisance takedown requests, that wouldn't actually stand up in court, I think you can make an argument that what they're doing is ethically wrong. 

Regardless of what "Fair Use" policy is in the legal world, I think it's a separate thing from a platform's specific policy.  For example, maybe there's a scenario where you couldn't be sued for playing someone's song, but YouTube itself allows for the artist to complain about your video and have it taken down.  It doesn't have to be generally enforceable, but on YouTube's platform it just has to be enforceable by YouTube's terms.  

And you only get three strikes, and you're booted.  They can close your channel.  You can contest strikes, but YouTube is notoriously hard to deal with, both in getting a hold of anyone to explain things, and in their persistent vagueness when issuing defenses of copyright strikes.  When YouTubers show how their video did not violate YouTube's terms and seek explanation for why a video is still taken down and a strike still exists on their account, YT may or may not ever answer, and if they do, they're not big on really explaining anything.  They just copy and paste their terms, which is what a content creator is disputing in the first place.  The only option from there is to fight YouTube itself, which is impossible for most creators, and it also runs the risk of biting the hand that feeds you, if you're a full-time YouTuber.  



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5n6Cn5Guqc


You mentioned Rick Beato....he's ranted about The Eagles more times than I can count, and he's one of the sources for the loosely measured decline of artists like them.  Though this video only alludes to it, it's not very substantive. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eofD6bZ0m4


 

[Brutus Buckeye]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSl54Bj2gbs

[SFBadger96]

She can definitely handle part 2. I don't watch TV news, and never and "morning news," but I hope she enjoys the change. Less humidity, no hurricanes, a different lifestyle, and a different media environment, I'm sure.