PDA

View Full Version : I dont understand youtube



randa16
11-19-2007, 03:56 PM
I downloaded a video last night on my commputer. It was the ending from Garth's first video tape of him having fun. I thought it would be cool for people to see but this morning I got a email saying that Pearl records had complained so they took it off. I dont get it. I did not put that on there to make money and it has never been on anything but the old vhs tape he released 15 years ago. I look at you tube all the time just to see what new garth stuff is on there I dont understand why Pearl records would have a problem with it? Are we not all just garth fans? Dont we just love all things garth? I think garth's people need to grow up and get a life and quit taking everything so serious.

Garthmedic
11-19-2007, 04:15 PM
Garth has always been protective of his image. If he hasn't approved it, he doesn't want it out there. I am surprised that the Garth footage from KC has been out there that long.

--spud--:)

cdb
11-19-2007, 04:27 PM
I sort of agree. I'm not checking out (or uploading) videos because I want to make any money, and I'm not doing it to spite Garth or his team... it's just because I'm a big fan. Sometimes this aspect of Garth and his Management frustrate me... the "controlling of the image" thing.

Garthmedic
11-19-2007, 04:50 PM
Somebody once asked me- If a person videotaped me doing something at the center of attention (Karaoke, for example), would I be OK if somebody put that video up on youtube without my permission?

I guess I would be upset, yeah.

--spud--:)

SnakeEyes
11-19-2007, 04:56 PM
You also have to realize that the label is operating in lock step with the rest of the music industry labels. They all see the Internet as a threat to their business model and very existence. The fact is that the Internet is a threat but it's only because the industry refuses to adapt and change. Instead they have a policy and strategy of stifle, suppress, and attempt to destroy which is impossible, especially in the long run. The Internet genie is out of the bottle. Actions, such as what you describe, fits into this mentality because if it is allowed it shows some leeway, even as minuscule as a crappy quality video and audio might be. Leeway to them is the slippery slope of doom.

alictf
11-19-2007, 04:59 PM
i understand him wanting control over what is put out there of him....but i sure hope the KC concert videos aren't removed from youtube! i love watching and reliving the concerts i went to - and getting to watch things from the concerts i did not get to go to....come on garth-we have like 8 mostly Garthless years coming...give us something! :)

and when/if the dvd comes out on this series of concerts - i will have it too!! because these youtube clips are certainly not the best quality usually :)

Garthmedic
11-19-2007, 05:09 PM
Well- it looks like Pearl Records finally got around to sacking the videos from the KC concerts:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Pearl Records

--spud--:)

alictf
11-19-2007, 05:11 PM
:( :( :( that makes me sooooooo mad!!!!!!!!!!! all my favorited ones are unavailable!!! :( that stinks!!!!!!!!!

don't understand what they were hurting...I'm MAD!!!!



sorry...won't ask for a link here....removed

Garthmedic
11-19-2007, 05:14 PM
As a reminder, PG does not allow links to unauthorized MP3's or videos.

--spud--:)

cdb
11-19-2007, 05:29 PM
"When money talks for the very last time..."

Blue Rosie
11-19-2007, 05:42 PM
...I know I did.
- Just what copyright does Pearl Records have over Georgia Rain or Garth singing cover songs??? Does anyone have a website for Pearl Records that says what they own?

Pam_NDL
11-19-2007, 06:01 PM
I guess I don't understand you guys being upset when illegal videos are removed. It was announced prior to every concert that videos of the concert weren't allowed in any form for any reason. In spite of that, people illegally video taped the concert and put it up on youtube. These people violated several laws, and then you complain when the owner of the footage demands that illegally copied concerts be removed. It is a copyright infringement and violates the law plain and simple. Get used to it--it will not change and can't be allowed in order to protect the copyright.

Pam

jnull91
11-19-2007, 06:38 PM
I guess I don't understand you guys being upset when illegal videos are removed. It was announced prior to every concert that videos of the concert weren't allowed in any form for any reason. In spite of that, people illegally video taped the concert and put it up on youtube. These people violated several laws, and then you complain when the owner of the footage demands that illegally copied concerts be removed. It is a copyright infringement and violates the law plain and simple. Get used to it--it will not change and can't be allowed in order to protect the copyright.

Pam

I put pictures that I took on there, in slide show form, and got busted by YouTube on behalf of Pearl. I really thought I was OK putting it on there, since they were taken by me... not.

SnakeEyes
11-19-2007, 06:59 PM
Did you set them to Garth music? If so, that would be why.

SnakeEyes
11-19-2007, 07:03 PM
...I know I did.
- Just what copyright does Pearl Records have over Georgia Rain or Garth singing cover songs??? Does anyone have a website for Pearl Records that says what they own?

Of the links I have checked, I haven't seen any covers removed. If so, those could be challenged since the proper rights holder has to be the one contesting. As for Georgia Rain, I don't know. I'm not a Trisha fan and don't know the label that would belong to. Nor do I know exactly what entities hold the rights and enforcement power over the concerts.

alictf
11-19-2007, 07:48 PM
it seems just about everything Garth was removed....there was an interview with him on a KC tv station i had favorited too...gone....don't know what rights they would have for that....

jnull91
11-19-2007, 07:49 PM
Did you set them to Garth music? If so, that would be why.

yeah - I did. Oops!

karik
11-19-2007, 07:59 PM
That's how my video got deleted... I made a picture slideshow to "The River" and put the song with it (obviously) and it got deleted. But how boring would it be to have a slideshow w/ no sound?!?!? I occasionally go on youtube just to hear the music, I do admit, though. At school we get to go to go to "school appropriate sites and do whatever. They approved garthbrooks.com!!!:) (but not these forums :( ) so I go on and listen to MTAM on the G player while I do other things. But I don't understand why doesn't his bother other artists? If Garth really wants to take off videos, he should check out MySpace TV. TONS of Garth videos!

GarthDreamer77
11-19-2007, 08:05 PM
Hey Everyone,

So I'm looking on youtube to see what all has been deleted and I can't believe that they took down a 21 sec clip of everyone doing the wave before Garth came out on Nov. 6th. OM Gosh :ekk:, is that messed up or what? I didn't know the wave had copy rights. :O :confused:

Crazy times we live in. :rolleyes:

Take Care & God Bless,
~*Kristen*~

Blue Rosie
11-19-2007, 08:16 PM
The wave was deleted?? Now that's too much. Was the lo_o in the shot from the overhead video screen or somethin_?

I _uess we should all _et used to writin_ and speakin_ without using the usin_ the ei_th letter of the alphabet. Anyone know if copyri_ht extends to the capital you-know-what letter?

karik
11-19-2007, 08:30 PM
Hey Everyone,

So I'm looking on youtube to see what all has been deleted and I can't believe that they took down a 21 sec clip of everyone doing the wave before Garth came out on Nov. 6th. OM Gosh :ekk:, is that messed up or what? I didn't know the wave had copy rights. :O :confused:

Crazy times we live in. :rolleyes:

Take Care & God Bless,
~*Kristen*~

I think the wave was deleted because no video cameras were allowed.......

I do think this could have been better handled if security actually checked your bags. Did anyone else just get to walk though? Now, I'm sure that they were a it rushed to get everyone through and keep the line moving, but rules are rules!

karik
11-19-2007, 08:30 PM
_t's k_nda fun typ_ng w_thout one letter!!!

karik
11-19-2007, 08:32 PM
S_rry, I just l_ve d_ing this! Man, I'm tired and b_red! I'm res_rting t_ playing child-ish games.....

alictf
11-19-2007, 08:40 PM
checkin bags wouldn't matter, most normal digital cameras will take video....so they are going to let those cameras in...

Pam_NDL
11-19-2007, 08:44 PM
I still just don't get why it is so hard to understand. There was to be NO VIDEO RECORDING!!!!!!!!!!! They didn't say you can record up until Garth performs----they said no video recording. All video rights of everything inside the arena belongs to Garth. It is you people who violate the rules that are responsible for alot of artists having a no camera at all rule. If you continue to violate the rules then I don't blame Garth if he starts allowing no cameras. I now understand why they do it because people refuse to abide by the rules. Stop taking videos or you will ruin it for the rest of us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pam

karik
11-19-2007, 08:54 PM
My digital camera has a video feature but no microphone so you get no sound. I didn't even attempt to use it. Why try to "test" the rules? What pleasure do you get?

allisonv7
11-20-2007, 01:08 AM
.......

PicturePerfect
11-20-2007, 01:12 AM
It was only a matter of time before the illegal concert footage of KC was removed. Garth, unlike a lot of other artists, is on top of this stuff and he should be. Whether you tape it or not. Keep it for yourself or not. Thats up to you. But once its posted, it is law breaking so you run the risk of it being removed. My suggestion is to be happy we saw as much as we did before it was removed (And Trisha's stuff is still up... because her management doesn't bother with youtube... at least not yet.)

Any songs used are Garth property. Do find it a little harsh that even random mvids are removed for using a GB song. But they are his songs, his choice, and I do understand it. Garth follows the rules and holds his fans to them as well. Frustrating, yes especially since so many others do not. But completely understandable.

SnakeEyes
11-20-2007, 01:16 AM
I think the wave was deleted because no video cameras were allowed.......

I do think this could have been better handled if security actually checked your bags. Did anyone else just get to walk though? Now, I'm sure that they were a it rushed to get everyone through and keep the line moving, but rules are rules!

even if no video was allowed inside, there was no copyright material in the video. The claim made by Pearl Records could be challenged and won with YouTube.

SnakeEyes
11-20-2007, 01:48 AM
I still just don't get why it is so hard to understand. There was to be NO VIDEO RECORDING!!!!!!!!!!! They didn't say you can record up until Garth performs----they said no video recording. All video rights of everything inside the arena belongs to Garth.

Everything inside is a questionable and pretty aggressive claim.


It is you people who violate the rules that are responsible for alot of artists having a no camera at all rule. If you continue to violate the rules then I don't blame Garth if he starts allowing no cameras. I now understand why they do it because people refuse to abide by the rules. Stop taking videos or you will ruin it for the rest of us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pam

Or everyone could just chill out and realize no harm is done here. Certainly one has to protect their works when money is involved. If we were talking about audio/video for the purpose of bootlegging, piracy, or the material was a viable replacement to a work, or would lead potential customers to not purchase something, which would cause the artist/label to lose money then we'd have a completely different story. A crappy audio/video clip on youtube (and youtube videos ARE low quality) does no harm to anyone. No one is losing any money by these clips being online. Having seen the clip, no one is going to say "Well I don't have to buy a ticket to his concert now" or "I don't need to watch his special now" nor are they going to cause someone to not buy a CD/DVD. If anything it might give a non or casual fan a different perspective about Garth and his concerts. The encore clips could give someone reason to buy/watch a live event, in only they actually included encores in the releases.

Many businesses today don't, nor seem to care, to understand today's fans, the Internet, and what is really important and what is not. It's something outside their business plans and models so they don't like it and many of these companies are still run by the previous generation so that is why they don't understand it. They see the Internet as a either threat or just another one dimensional promotional vehicle instead of what it is and can be to their business. They should be embracing and adopting the many facets of the Internet to their fullest potential. Instead, they are stuck with a pre-Internet mindset and an antiquated business mentality. It is a waste of time and company resources to go after these clips.

BTW... is the excessive punctuation really necessary?

randa16
11-20-2007, 02:31 AM
Great post SnakeEyes. I could not agree with you more. I love Garth but he or his people are going too far. Who is going to buy youtube video? Just sad to see happen this is the first time I have ever thought garth was wrong.

Steven75407
11-20-2007, 08:11 AM
BTW, what happened to the Most Wanted Live thread?

cdb
11-20-2007, 08:52 AM
"And when money talks for the very last time..."

Garthmedic
11-20-2007, 09:20 AM
Could a business use a youtube video to drive traffic to their site? (Traffiic = $$). So you may not profit, but a third party could, using Garth's image.

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=59825&topic=10554

http://www.youtube.com/t/howto_copyright

The FBI does investigate and prosecute copyright infringements http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=17701593

--spud--:)

kissncry
11-20-2007, 09:51 AM
BTW, what happened to the Most Wanted Live thread?


It died a very premature death. Tragic, really..... Maybe this link will help explain.





http://www.planetgarth.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126044




Sherry

SnakeEyes
11-20-2007, 10:20 AM
Could a business use a youtube video to drive traffic to their site? (Traffiic = $$). So you may not profit, but a third party could, using Garth's image.

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=59825&topic=10554

http://www.youtube.com/t/howto_copyright

The FBI does investigate and prosecute copyright infringements http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=17701593

--spud--:)

They certainly could and in those situations an entity should consider stepping in. But again that entity needs to be reasonable. This site uses Garth's image and name and if they felt this site's Google and Amazon click ads were for profit they could step in. But as a fan site it would be foolish to do so (are you reading this Prince?).

Not sure why you shared the FBI link, a bit excessive in this thread. The FBI go after matters of greater substance and money, movies and music piracy. Not really relevant to this discussion.

Jen19
11-20-2007, 10:30 AM
I'm just glad I watched alot of the video before they got deleted..LOL I fiqured they would soon. It does make sense and really people should not be upset.

cdb
11-20-2007, 10:37 AM
Not sure why you shared the FBI link, a bit excessive in this thread. The FBI go after matters of greater substance and money, movies and music piracy. Not really relevant to this discussion.

DING! We have a winner.

SnakeEyes
11-20-2007, 12:14 PM
Great post SnakeEyes. I could not agree with you more. I love Garth but he or his people are going too far. Who is going to buy youtube video? Just sad to see happen this is the first time I have ever thought garth was wrong.

In fairness, you can't just blame Garth and/or his people. It's basically an industry wide group think problem. It's changing over time, there are some who are working outside the box, but it's a slow change and anyone that knows history should expect that it would be. It's how industries such as this have always moved.

A good example of the change is the number of taper friendly bands and artist. I've watched it grow dramatically over the last 10 years. Sure lots of top acts are still not on the list that allow it but it is changing. I wish Garth would allow it. He'd be the first big name mainstream country act (that I am aware of) to finally allow it's fans to continually enjoy the concert they went to or wish they would have been able to go to.

cdb
11-20-2007, 12:24 PM
^
I doubt he would ever do that. He doesn't even allow his albums to be sold on the internet, let alone have people freely trade live performances over the internet. I just don't see it happening with 'ole GB.

SnakeEyes
11-20-2007, 12:27 PM
Yes I know. Unfortunately, it is wishful thinking. Not that it has to be trading over the Internet. ;) One of my favorite bands, Nickel Creek, allows taping but trading and sharing must be done on a personal level. No mass B&P, tape trees, and no transfering over the internet. You have to do good old fashion snail mailing of CDs. lol.

DavidN
11-20-2007, 01:00 PM
"When money talks for the very last time..."

Like that's ever gonna happen...

themusicman118
11-20-2007, 01:07 PM
I personally was pretty sure that this was going to happen sometime after Garth's people got done in KC, I just wasn't exactly sure of when. :(

J. Rusin

Maggie526
11-20-2007, 01:13 PM
What is so difficult to understand?

Videotaping the concert is prohibited by law.
Putting the video on Youtube is illegal because the video was unlawfully obtained and it infringes on copyright laws.
Garth Brooks, the Songwriters & Pearl Records OWN the copyrights to all the material, footage, etc.
The public has no right to any of these things without the permission of the owner.

cdb
11-20-2007, 01:39 PM
I understand YouTube's policies.

What I don't understand is how Garth justifies his. It's not wrong to openly question Garth. I know are all here to praise and worship the man, but it doesn't make me any less of a fan to ask the question "why" and play the devil's advocate every-once-in-a-while.

The majority of those videos were simply put up by (and for) fans of Garth... people who spent money on concert tickets, cds, merchandise, travel expenses, movie tickets, etc. The reason people put these videos up there is to share Garth with the rest of the world... and to show everyone who is not "in-the-know" who the HELL GARTH IS! Garth claims to be a man for the fans, and for the most part he is... but when it comes to the way he handles the internet, he's last in the pack.

Just do a search of other artists on YouTube and look at all of the great videos you (as a fan) can watch and relive.

Reba:
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=reba+live

George Strait:
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=George+Strait+live&search=Search

rhd13
11-20-2007, 02:26 PM
I have been a Garth fan since I was a little kid and worked for almost 6 years in country radio (as an on-air DJ). I understand that Garth wants to protect his image and his music. I also understand that people do take advantage of situations and sell bootlegs of concerts, etc. However, I do not think most real fans are malicious and trying to make a buck off his image or his music. There comes a point where I think that attitude hurts his career more than it helps.

Here is my two cents (not that anyone really cares)

The problem I have is this. I am a fan of a lot of artists. Some artists encourage bootlegs or live recordings (audio and video) as long as someone isn't copying and selling their commercially available products. I am a big fan of 80s rock. Growing up I loved Poison. Back in the mid 90s they recorded an album that was tied up by the record company and it was thought it would never see the light of day. Lead singer Bret Michaels went on record and said that he wanted fans to get their hands on it (no matter how) because it was the best work they had ever done. Eventually the album did see the light of day, but he encouraged real fans to copy it and pass it around. He encouraged it because he understood that it increased exposure and it gave the fans what they were looking for. When the album hit stores those same fans actually went to the store and bought it!

I think Poison understood a concept that I'm not sure Garth does. I'm sure some people will jump me for saying this, but it is the only real issue I have with the way Garth does things. Fans want to get their hands on what he does. Since he constantly doesn't make those things available, people find ways around it. If I had a concert DVD with all of his encore covers I wouldn't go to YouTube to see them. If I had complete concerts instead of concert DVDs with "bonus tracks" (that were nothing more than songs removed from the concert) I wouldn't fuss about it.

A great example was "This is Garth Brooks 2". Like many of you I waited years to see it. You know why, because when I saw that tour live he closed his shows with "We're An American Band." He also played album cuts like "Face to Face" on that tour. I just knew that "We're An American Band" or something I had never seen anywhere else would be on the DVD. When I got the DVD it was the same songs I've got a thousand times on DVD. I wanted something unique, but most of the really cool stuff from that tour is locked up in a vault never to be seen. If I'm going to get my hands on it it isn't going to be from Garth. If he cleaned out the vaults like KISS we wouldn't be going around trying to find this stuff some other way.

NEVER, NOT ONCE, have I wanted to profit from his "image" or sell his music to someone else. I'm a fan. I just want to see what I didn't get to see. Lots of songs were performed at the shows in KC like "Which One of Them", "Wolves" and about 25 different covers that we will never see if they are removed from YouTube. I even went to one of the shows, but there were tons of songs the other nights that I would love to see. What does it hurt for those videos to be there?

Yes, I have worked in the music business so I understand the legalities of all that stuff, but this is a perfect example of why the music business suffers. They cut their own throats by forgetting who makes the thing run. It is us the fans. If we don't buy CDs, DVDs, or concert tickets all these people would be working like us.

I love Garth, he is my favorite artist, but let's be honest, there comes a point when this all gets ridiculous. Removing people's pictures from YouTube because it somehow infringes upon his "image" does nothing but aggrevate the people that actually care about what he does. That goes for all artists that have that do this kind of stuff.

I know some of you will reply angrily and tell me the same stuff as written above, but the point is I WOULD BUY IT IF HE WOULD RELEASE IT. No artist will ever be able to control every person in a 20,000 seat arena, especially with the internet. If artists would stop being afraid of technology and use it to their advantage we as fans would be more satisfied.

The thing I loved about Napster was it allowed me to hear music I had never heard before without paying $15-$20 to buy it. I'm fan of a lot of artists because of the fact I got to hear their music for free via Napster. What's funny is in most instances I bought the albums I liked in the record store to support those artists (even after downloading it). The stuff I downloaded and didn't buy I wouldn't have bought anyways. The fact that it ended up on a CD or in my MP3 player benefited the artist in the long run because I wouldn't have listened to it if it hadn't been available for free. Does that make sense? I thought Napster could've been a great tool until everybody got "sue happy". It exposed artists who never got exposure any other ways.

Long story short, it is us the fans, that constantly get screwed. If CD prices weren't what they are, and concert tickets weren't what they are I think a lot more artists would benefit. I'd go see Bon Jovi this year, but I'm not paying over $200 a ticket to do so.

I guess I'm just tired of artists taking advantage of the people who love what they do and make their dreams come true. It's like we are some evil, malicious group of people that are out to make a buck off of someone and their image. Artists should be flattered when a fan cares enough to actually go out and attempt to find out about their album cuts or songs they play in their encore live. How is it a bad thing if I want to see that? I've never understood that attitude and no matter what anybody says I never will. If I care enough to search that stuff out it should make that artist flattered that we actually care, not mad because we infringed on their "image."

I'm not saying Garth does all that, because I don't necessarily think he does, but I think there is a better way to "protect your image" than attacking YouTube. Just seems a little ridiculous to me.

And yes, I understand all the legalities of it all.

rhd13
11-20-2007, 02:47 PM
Some of the things written above is why I think the music business as we know it is dying. Here is why I believe it is happening.

1. The music business has forgotten who runs it. In case they have forgotten it is us, the fans.

2. The product for the most part is subpar. We have to pay $20 for a CD now days. I haven't heard much music over the last few years that has inspired me to drop that kind of cash.

3. Thanks Viacom (MTV). Due to "reality" TV there is very few places to see videos anymore. MTV has nothing to do with music anymore (and in case you didn't know it, they own CMT). That would be why CMT sucks now.

4. Illegal downloading - I think illegal downloading is the biggest reason, but it isn't for the reason you may think. I think downloading could have been the music business' biggest friend. By allowing people to hear music for free it would have created lots of new stars. Before the RIAA cracked down on it all I got to "discover" lots of new bands that I now buy all of their CDs and go to their concerts. Thanks to the RIAA I will no longer "discover" new artists because I don't have the money to buy a $20 CD every time I am curious about an artist. Sure I understand you can buy tracks for .99 cents, but it is hard to get a feel for an artist off a handful of songs.

Long story short I think the problem with the music business is the music business, and I used to work in it so I feel like I have a little knowledge on that :)

GarthdaMan
11-20-2007, 03:06 PM
I understand Garth's policy. I can see his viewpoint. However, from my point of view, I don't see how these videos hurt him. I'm sure many people went to YouTube to see what all of the fuss was regarding his 9 show sell-outs. I would think you would want people to see the positive side of this. I like to go and look at other artists as well. It's a good tool for fans to be able to use. I wish he would embrace it and not condemn it. I was viewing all of these videos frequently because I am a huge fan of his live shows, and not because I'm attempting to take advantage of him as an artist. I see both sides, but I just wish he could not be so controlling about it.

All of that being said, he will always be #1 in my book.

SnakeEyes
11-20-2007, 03:34 PM
4. Illegal downloading - I think illegal downloading is the biggest reason, but it isn't for the reason you may think. I think downloading could have been the music business' biggest friend. By allowing people to hear music for free it would have created lots of new stars. Before the RIAA cracked down on it all I got to "discover" lots of new bands that I now buy all of their CDs and go to their concerts. Thanks to the RIAA I will no longer "discover" new artists because I don't have the money to buy a $20 CD every time I am curious about an artist. Sure I understand you can buy tracks for .99 cents, but it is hard to get a feel for an artist off a handful of songs.


The music industry should have been out in front of the Internet revolution, providing a legitimate alternative to the illegal downloading of Napster. Instead they foolishly believed they could just shut it all down, ignore the internet and continue their antiquated business model. We are about 8 years past Napster and they are still dragging their feet when it come to internet sales and the numbers of piracy outlets have ballooned. The situation is ridiculous from all sides.

rhd13
11-20-2007, 03:40 PM
The music industry should have been out in front of the Internet revolution, providing a legitimate alternative to the illegal downloading of Napster. Instead they foolishly believed they could just shut it all down, ignore the internet and continue their antiquated business model. We are about 8 years past Napster and they are still dragging their feet when it come to internet sales and the numbers of piracy outlets have ballooned. The situation is ridiculous from all sides.

Can I get an amen!!! They took what could have been their biggest and best tool and ruined it.

alictf
11-20-2007, 04:14 PM
i also understand that you are not suppose to have camera's in there and all that legality cr@p......

but there is just no reason we shouldn't be able to watch those videos - the majority on there are very bad quality and sound - so i don't think anyone is going to NOT buy a dvd put out of the concerts because they saw a 30 second clip on youtube - if anything, it would probably make them more apt to buy it!! a little taste of it will make you want more garth, right?!

i just think it's crazy. i would bet not one person had any intention of profiting off of those clips on youtube. They were just being GREATLY enjoyed by US FANS!!! i went to two concerts, but WISH i could of gone to all nine - so loved seeing what i missed. Garth says all the time, it's about us. .... he should post clips on his website or something from the concerts...I would love for Garth to come on here and respond to this thread! ;) btw i see George Strait concert videos on Youtube - aren't ya a George Strait wannabe garth? :)

and a little off topic, but I also don't understand when he released the DVD Entertainer set, why he took out parts of the concerts?? (like the 'jimmy jimmy' chant in Central Park-my favorite part)....

karik
11-20-2007, 05:44 PM
they took out alot in the entertainer box set. Now, I can understand taking out the things said about Sandy and the Sandy interviews because he's divorsed from her, but I don't understand the other stuff.

Garthmedic
11-20-2007, 07:28 PM
Guys and gals...

I understand, and agree with you on many points. That being said, we are where we are. Garth doesn't want it out there. He is a control freak and demands that anything showing him is just the way he wants it. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

Take a look at Brad Paisley on youtube. He has his own account (run by his management firm), and posts all his videos, plus other unique things there. It's business, run by each artist.

I do take exception with posters who question the relevancy of the links I posted. Copyright infringement is a federal crime which is investigated by the FBI. That is the reason I posted the link- not to incite flaming. I would ask for an apology, but instead I am going to let it pass.

In my opinion, it boils down to respect. Obviously, those who disregarded the PA announcement before the show and decided to video it, then publicly post it, show zero respect for Garth. I had to laugh at the posts which tried to blame the security staff for not doing a better job at checking purses. Most all digital cameras can do video these days.

To complain that we are unable to view unauthorized video of a concert is just plain silly. Unauthorized is unauthorized. Sheesh!

--spud--:)

randa16
11-20-2007, 07:31 PM
rhd13 you are the man. I loved your post. I was just thinking man I really wish I had a bootleg of those youtube clips cause they sounded so great. I dont get it garth is retired has nothing to do so log on and see what we are saying or mabye we should all get a petition going to make garth issue a statement and explain how a horrible copy of his concert on youtube is hurting him? and what about flickr?

BLL
11-20-2007, 08:24 PM
Copyright issues aside, please understand posting the clips are akin to stealing from Garth; the show is HIS property. So many of you have pointed out the quality of the videos posted are really low; has it occured to you that Garth would prefer his fans to have a HIGH quality effort instead? The man paid out of his pocket to edit the never seen 'In Another's Eyes', which to me speaks volumns about his dedication to a quality product.


No, I couldn't make the concerts. I watched the show in the theatre, and was happy to see it. I have deliberately not gone on youtube, as I didn't want to take away from the concert I saw. Just my 2 cents.

Pam_NDL
11-20-2007, 09:53 PM
AMEN, Spud. Illegal is illegal! Anyone who took an audio or video recording of any of the concerts committed a crime. If you want the law changed then write your legislator, until then stop violating the law or the only solution for the artists is to not allow any cameras, and then I will be very upset because I enjoy taking photographs. I have attended many concerts recently where the artist has forbidden any cameras at all in order to stop all the illegal recordings.

Your illegal conduct is effecting those of us who just want to take photos. It isn't fair to us.

Pam

MrsC92
11-20-2007, 10:04 PM
Wow, I was so not going to comment on this.. You can't applaud him for backing out of interviews during the writers strike and then expect him to allow illegal video. As a fan, you/we are blinded.. we think he is so great he should be shared with all.. but Garth is that compass always pointing true.. this is not because he wants to punish his fans.. he's protecting/supporting all those that follow and came before.. and for me .. that's just one of the reasons I love and respect the man..

Lowland_Kid
11-21-2007, 06:06 AM
I wished that Garth would give a reason for those clips being taken off YouTube. Just saying: "All videotaping was forbidden" or "They are my property" doesn't really do it for me. I would like to understand WHY.

Unfortunately, I didn't find/see ANY clips on YouTube and being in Europe, it would have been all I have to enjoy those concerts. I love seeing the pictures that everyone put up here and I do thank you all for that. But it would have been so cool to really live (small) parts of the concerts by watching the clips on YouTube.

I love watching clips of bands/artists that I love on YouTube. It has definitely never kept me from buying their CD's or DVD's. And if Garth is so afraid that he is making a bad appearance in these clips, well..... maybe he should do more rehearsals ;)

shmlss4gb
11-21-2007, 09:49 AM
It's one thing if you think Garth is wrong... but you can't argue with the law (you can disagree with it sure, but it's still the law). Go read the copyright law http://www.copyright.gov/

The copyright basics on there is written more in layman's terms for those that don't want to deal with legalese. The copyright holder has the right to say how their stuff is used. If you don't have permission, and it doesn't fall into fair use, then it's not free for you to do as you wish.

I personally respect EVERYONE that makes sure copyright laws are not infringed upon, and not just because it's Garth/Garth's people doing it.

Terri

garthsgirl
11-21-2007, 09:52 AM
I know some of you will reply angrily and tell me the same stuff as written above, but the point is I WOULD BUY IT IF HE WOULD RELEASE IT. No artist will ever be able to control every person in a 20,000 seat arena, especially with the internet. If artists would stop being afraid of technology and use it to their advantage we as fans would be more satisfied.


A

I only quoted a very small snipet of your post, of which I agree 100%. As someone who couldn't go to KC, unless I wanted to play Scrooge and say the hell with everyone else at Christmas, and could not get to either theater because no public transportation would be running back my way afterwards, I appreciated what little I got to see on YouTube...as I don't get GAC either, LOL.

Quite frankly, after I heard theaters didn't get the whole show I'm glad I couldn't make it because it would have been a disappointment. The notion that the encore should be just for those that are there does not wash...especially since shows were added...meaning they already got more to begin with.

Sorry, I'm a little ticked about the whole deal and how it was handled...guess no one can tell, LOL.

Lisa

rhd13
11-21-2007, 09:54 AM
Let me make this clear. I did not take any video at the concert. I didn't even take a camera for that matter. If I didn't even have a camera then I obviously did not violate the law.

My problem is the system is flawed. Although I'm only 29 I miss the "good ol' days" when this wasn't always about money. I remember that before they got famous Metallica encouraged people to copy their tapes and pass them on to others in an attempt to build a following. They became a multi-platinum sensation, selling out concert arenas, before they ever had a hit single. Isn't it ironic that they led the charge against "illegal downloading." They bit the hand that fed them.

That is my problem. It has become a business afraid of technology and afraid of the very people that give it life. When you bite the hand that feeds you, the hand well eventually let you starve to death.

I understand everybody saying it is illegal and disrespectful to Garth, but I think there is more to it than that. If these were high quality, bootlegged recordings where people were profiting off of his image that is one thing. Most of these videos were taken by cell phones and fans who just wanted to get a glimpse of some song he didn't sing when they weren't there.

He should consider himself lucky that we care that much honestly.

rhd13
11-21-2007, 10:11 AM
I want to repeat again, I didn't take a camera into the Sprint Center so I in no way violated any law. Part of the reason I didn't do that is because I didn't want the temptation of doing something illegal. At the same time, just because something is a law doesn't mean it is smart or I have to agree with it. Just to drive my point home, here are some laws on the books in my great state of Tennessee.

You can't shoot any game other than whales from a moving automobile.

Hollow logs may not be sold.

More than 8 women may not live in the same house because that would constitute a brothel.

It is illegal to use a lasso to catch a fish.

"Crimes against nature" are prohibited.

Ministers are to be dedicated to God and therefore are not eligible to hold a seat in either House of the Legislature.

Any person who participates in a duel may not hold any public office in the state.

Giving and receiving oral sex is still prohibited by law.

Stealing a horse is punishible by hanging.

No Christian parent may require their children to pick up trash from the highway on Easter day.

Driving is not to be done while asleep.

It is legal to gather and consume roadkill.

The definition of "dumb animal" includes every living creature.

Interracial marriages are illegal.

Tattooing a minor is a misdemeanor.

It is illegal to dare a child to purchase a beer.

It is illegal to place tacks on a highway.

Skunks may not be carried into the state.

Just because a law is a law doesn't mean it is intelligent. I think the system is throughly flawed and this is why the music business is fighting to stay alive. I'll say it again. It is one thing to have a "pro shot" bootleg and make a profit off of someone else's "image". It is another when fans just want to get a glimpse of their favorite artist (through a crappy cell phone camera or digital camera in the rafters) singing "Wolves" or "Which One of Them". Again, just because a law is a law doesn't mean I have to think it is right or intelligent.

Those copyright laws were created to keep people from making a profit off of someone else's work. Now they are being used to take away all kinds of things. It reminds me of our Constitution. They have stretched the principles in that document to the point that they don't even mean what they were originally intended to mean.

cdb
11-21-2007, 10:47 AM
Very good points, rhd13.

Everyone can judge the situation however they want, but I never meant any disrespect towards Garth when I snapped 30-second videos of the show (and pre-show) on my digital camera. If anything, I see it as respect. I admire the man greatly. I want to be able to relive the experience as much as my technology will allow, and share it with others. I never meant any harm as a fan by doing this.

rhd13
11-21-2007, 11:00 AM
I agree with you completely cdb.

This reminds me of when I was in elementary school. It is that principle of punishing everyone because one person MIGHT do something wrong.

In that arena with 20,000 people there might have been one malicious person trying to video the concert in the attempt of making a dollar off Garth. Because that might be the case we are all slapped on the hand for it.

I apologize for harping on this, but I just think this whole idea of protecting every little iota of audio, video, or film is a little overboard and kinda stupid honestly. Let's "punish" the people who actually give a flying flip about what is going on.

Sounds like a brilliant marketing idea to me.

Garthmedic
11-21-2007, 11:55 AM
I honestly don't think that it is related to profiting, when it comes to Garth. I think it's all about his image, and him having control.

rhd13
11-21-2007, 12:25 PM
My rants are less to do with Garth and more about the business in general. As a genuine fan of music, I really get frustrated sometimes.

It seems like the true music fans really get the raw end of the deal sometimes.

I love Garth and I love all the work he has ever done. I just wish he wasn't so controlling sometimes. I just don't see the issue with the YouTube videos and things like that.

We love you Garth and we, as fans, just want to be able to experience everything you do. :)

Blue Rosie
11-21-2007, 09:33 PM
Ridiculous legal machinations don't bolster anyone's image.

The only youtube videos that were "image damaging" were the ones of Shameless on Nov 10th where he royally messed up the lyrics - and that was well before the bra flew in.

Having your crew pass out the coveted 1st and 2nd row tickets to predominately Pretty Young Things (and lie about it if they were asked) didn't help Garth's image either.

Garthmedic
11-21-2007, 10:16 PM
Apparently, Garth Brooks doesn't agree with your assessment.

karik
11-21-2007, 10:19 PM
this is getting slightly off topic..............

Debbie from NZ
11-23-2007, 05:37 PM
I still just don't get why it is so hard to understand. There was to be NO VIDEO RECORDING!!!!!!!!!!! They didn't say you can record up until Garth performs----they said no video recording. All video rights of everything inside the arena belongs to Garth. It is you people who violate the rules that are responsible for alot of artists having a no camera at all rule. If you continue to violate the rules then I don't blame Garth if he starts allowing no cameras. I now understand why they do it because people refuse to abide by the rules. Stop taking videos or you will ruin it for the rest of us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pam
Amen to that! When we have concerts here we're usually not allowed any cameras at all. I think it's wonderful that Garth lets us take as many photos of him as we like.

Debbie from NZ
11-23-2007, 05:54 PM
It's amazing the music industry lasted all those years when all we had was an artist creating a product and a consumer buying it or not.

Certainly in my neck of the woods we had very few shows, very little TV coverage, the odd teen music magazine, and that was it. Nobody expected the artist to sell their soul for the fans or do business any other way than that which they chose.

I think that we are now very privileged to have better access to information via the internet, and extremely fortunate to have been able to meet someone like Garth at things like Spring Training and Fan Fair etc. before he was retired and even sometimes since he's been retired. I am astounded that people still demand more.

What will it take to make you people happy? Can Garth not be who he wants to be? If you want him to be who you decide, most of the rest of you will still not be happy.

To my mind, and I know most of you will not agree with this, if you didn't buy a ticket to go to a KC show you don't have the right to see it. The fact that Garth decided to broadcast it for everyone else is extremely generous.

I've missed many concerts of my favorite artists due to living at the butt end of the planet but not once did I ever feel like they owed me a free look or anything else.

karik
11-23-2007, 06:57 PM
very good point, Debbie

Lowland_Kid
11-24-2007, 11:35 AM
To my mind, and I know most of you will not agree with this, if you didn't buy a ticket to go to a KC show you don't have the right to see it. The fact that Garth decided to broadcast it for everyone else is extremely generous.

Everyone else? Don't make me laugh... it was only for "everyone else" in the USA/Canada! I have heard rumors that it was broadcasted to 5 theatres in Europe... but I never found any information about that in the internet or anywhere else. And it wouldn't have been live because of the time difference. (which wouldn't bother me one bit if I had a chance to see it in a theatre!)

And seeing a few short clips on YouTube is something totally different from seeing a whole concert! I don't exactly feel that I "have the right" to see those clips... but I do feel that it is rediculous to deny the fans that bonus. It is a great way of enjoying the artist you love.

Shutrbug72
11-24-2007, 12:35 PM
Something else to throw in here...

Maybe Garth wants to keep these concerts as they are. A unique moment in time that those who were blessed enough to attend can take with them forever in their hearts.

I'm big into photography, it's my favorite hobby, my therapy at times. But sometimes I get so lost in capturing the moment that I forget to truly live in that moment that is occuring. I actually found myself doing that in Kansas City. I made myself put down the camera and take in the incredible feelings that were surrounding me. Maybe that's what Garth is getting at with protecting these moments from being recorded. Forcing people to take it all in and being in THAT MOMENT as if it might never happen again.

Just a thought...

- lish

Emerald Isle
11-24-2007, 01:17 PM
I see the validity of both points of this argument.

First, if it's illegal, then it's illegal. What more can be said about it? Moreover, if Garth doesn't want it there, then it's his right to have it taken down.

Now do I agree with his rigidity on the matter, no. I agree with rdh13 & others that instead of fighting so hard to remove this stuff, Garth should recognize that there's a market for it (otherwise, people wouldn't post it or watch it) and officially put it out there himself. Like someone said, Garth should start his own YouTube page where he can post old and rare concert videos as well as approve and disapprove videos posted by others.

If he's worried about getting paid for it, then by all means, charge for it, but please release entire concerts when you do. I loved watching the KC concert in the theater, but like others, I was pretty bummed out when we didn't get to see the whole encore. I've seen him perform The Thunder Rolls and Friends in Low Places a hundred times, but I've never seen him perform Which One of Them or Wolves before. And because he's retired, it's possible that the ONLY way I'll EVER get to see him do those songs would be on something like Youtube. So why not put it out there for me to see?

The real bummer of it is that if and when he releases the KC concert on DVD, it will just be the same songs I have on the other 4 Entertainer DVD's. Nothing will be new or original except the stage, the date, and the outfit Garth wore to the concert. And if the GAC special is any indication, then 1 of the only 2 new songs he sang (Good Ride Cowboy) won't even be on there. Why would I want to pay for something I essentially already have?

Unfortunately, I think Garth is so focused on racking up CD sales, that he disapproves of us seeing or hearing him in any other format (other than DVD) that might take away from it. Even so, there's a way to give fans what they want through that medium as well. Look at Pearl Jam, they got so sick of people bootlegging their shows, that they eventually started releasing each and every concert they did on CD. Not only did they release them, each CD had the entire concert, from the very beginning to the very end. I bought 3 of those CD's. Two were double CD's and one, a Seattle show, was 3 discs. That means that instead of downloading these shows, I shelled out close to 50 bucks to get them. If Garth wants album sales, he should start releasing old concerts on CD. That way we could hear him sing Not Counting You, Against the Grain, One Night a Day, and other gems that we will NEVER, EVER get to hear him sing again.

In truth, I only somewhat like Pearl Jam, but I LOVE Garth. If I had 30-40, or even 20-30 hand-selected concert discs to choose from, let's just say my wife would throw a fit about all the money I'd be spending.

The point is, like rhd13 and others are saying, the music world has changed dramatically since Garth retired. If he's truly coming back someday like he said in KC, then he's going to need to adapt. In the meantime, why not pull a Pearl Jam and Brad Paisley and put the stuff out yourself instead of kicking against the pricks so hard to get rid of it.

Basically Garth, if you want control, then take control. Please realize that there's just as strong of a market today for live versions of Wolves, Which One of Them, and your acoustic Amarillo By Morning as there is for Two of a Kind and Papa Loved Mama. As for me, I'd MUCH rather hear you sing new or rare stuff instead just the old stuff. So when I get a chance to watch you sing When You Come Back to Me Again on youtube, you better believe I'm going to watch. If I had the choice to watch it legally, I would. But since there's not, I'll take what I can get.

Debbie from NZ
11-24-2007, 03:35 PM
If it were about the money he could just raise the ticket prices, and the album prices, and the merchandize prices ... like most others do.

It cost me more to buy souvenir Kansas tee shirts than Garth tee shirts (and yes, I do mean Kansas; I never looked at the Missouri ones).

Steven75407
11-24-2007, 05:34 PM
What makes me angry about copyright laws is this: suppose you have a performance of your favorite singer/band from a televised awards show, concert or guest appearance saved on your PC, and you want to share it with the world, so you put it on youtube only for them to suspend your account a month later just because they view it as "this is MY video"

lucaswynne
11-24-2007, 07:50 PM
It used to say "removed by Garth Brooks"...

Garth and his people spend a lot of money to put together concerts, dvds, cds, etc. A bootlegged video is the same as bootlegged music.

Sure... Garth is well off financially, but that doesn't give him any less rights than the rest of us. If he didn't make money how would he be able to fund all of his charitable giving? And let's be honest, he's the best AND a heck of a lot cheaper than everybody else. $12 3-disc sets, $6 cds, $15 DVD box set, $25 tickets... I don't see anybody else stepping up to the plate like Garth.

jason2
11-26-2007, 10:13 AM
speaking of copyright.........heres something to ponder

why is there a "record" button on a VCR? lol


where in the heck is "YUKON JACK"? didnt he say the theater concert would be different from when it was shown on TV? I saw it in the theater and at home, and GB sounded different vocally in some parts, and didnt Yukon Jack control garth's youtube account? does anybody have the link to that?

And I think I read on here where Yukon Jack he said keep your eyes on L.A. and Jersey


?

jason2
11-26-2007, 10:31 AM
also, I think Yukon Jack had a video of the opening night concert and the video was pointed directly towards the "hole" in the center of the stage and not on Jimmy on top of the piano, almost like Yukon Jack knew where GB would be coming up, so he must have something to do with garth because he sure said alot of things that are now adding up

kissncry
11-26-2007, 12:07 PM
Check out his profile, that oughta tell ya somethin' ;-)........





Sherry

alictf
11-26-2007, 12:17 PM
I'm big into photography, it's my favorite hobby, my therapy at times. But sometimes I get so lost in capturing the moment that I forget to truly live in that moment that is occuring. I actually found myself doing that in Kansas City. I made myself put down the camera and take in the incredible feelings that were surrounding me.
- lish

i had to make a conscious effort to do that too!

i went to two shows, tried to take most pics at first, and just enjoy the 2nd - but i still ended up taking lots of pictures! but still made that effort to just put it down and enjoy!

maybe if the nine shows hadn't sold out instantly, might could understand Garth only wanting the people there to see show...but it was sold out - not like people want to watch youtube instead of being there live. I think he should put clips on his website - or have his on youtube account. it's just crazy. just fans that want to watch him anyway we can....i went to two shows, but loved seeing him sing songs he didn't sing while i was there. wish i could of seen him sing which one of them and wolves...was on youtube briefly, but i missed it :(

randa16
11-27-2007, 11:51 AM
I started this thread cause I was mad about youtube taking video's down and wanted to vent. I did not know if I was going to get choped up or not but I am really glad to know that there are other people out there who think this is just as stupid as I do. I know it is illegal but come on it is being done by people who are just fans. I agree we have seen friends in low places sung a hundred thousand times so when he does Wolves or other people's songs we are going to get excited and want to hear it. Also dont tell me that he does not want the videos out cause he wants to keep the concert something you only see from being there. I have been to ten GB concerts in my life and have seen every youtube video and tv concert and there is no question that the concert is almost a out of body experience that no youtube or tv video can ever catch. I would think that with garth having a marketing degree he would be more internet smart. I have heard that garth has recorded every concert he has done so I agree with emerald isle that he sould release old concerts on dvd how sweet would that be? I have heard that sometimes he reads these post so Garth if you are reading we love you, we love everything you do. We are not trying to steal from you we just get excited when we see you doing george strait covers or songs we never heard.