PDA

View Full Version : Meat Loaf vs Me


Wario
09 Jan 2010, 14:52
So all my Meat fan friends i've made on YouTube have been banned/suspended or are now at the mercy of youtube.

These guys had nothing but love for meat and payed the price.

They've been active for more then three years and they are gone in a blink of an eye.

I'm gonna be next. Youtube is going through De-meation.

It is important to know we arent trying to infringe copyright we just want to let the true fans see perfromances you CANNOT get anywhere else.

We have taken no ownership of the recordings.

we can see music videos that have been put out on DVD/VHS, MSO, 3 Bats Live, BA Live, the '82 wembley show .... but Night of the proms, in the neighborhood, Meltdown '87, ect. are stuff never released.

i even shared a whole fimed version of a 1988 tour concert that NOBODY outside few have seen. If thats deleted what other window is their to that tour?????

I speak for my fellow meat fans and subscribers on youtube when i say please ask us to take whatever videos you want us to take down and we can come to some agreement on what stays and what goes.

if it's something thats been released ... you got it. If its a recording thats not avalible for purchess then why take it down? It only helps Meat Loaf's reputation?

If its sitting on teh back shelf in teh vaults for 30 years what's the point if its not enjoyed by fans??

I'm teh only channel left on youtube still diverted to Meat now. Kinda lonley..... :(

Read this comment someone said on one of my videos (source link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPEdLefTKhI ):

"thank you very much, chris, for this wonderful rare a-quality recording and for another year of great work for rock history. someday your archive will have immense historical value, it even has today. have merry christmas and enjoy these holy days!!! "

Keep Rocking and thank you for reading. This is aimed strongly at whoever is deleting the vids

CarylB
09 Jan 2010, 18:15
It is important to know we arent trying to infringe copyright we just want to let the true fans see perfromances you CANNOT get anywhere else.

There are many performances I haven't seem live .. such is life .. but many I have, and many are available to me to buy. I don't know about the quality of yours, but so many recordings of live shows, (and taken without Meat's consent and generally in breach of the rules of the venue and the conditions printed on tickets remember,) are of poor quality. Meat says time and time again that he works his hardest to get it right, to deliver the best he possibly can. Surely it's understandable if he doesn't like poor quality bootleg recordings posted on the internet? It certainly is to me. He has performed tirelessly for 30 years and there is plenty available to enjoy which is legitimate.

if it's something thats been released ... you got it. If its a recording thats not avalible for purchess then why take it down? It only helps Meat Loaf's reputation?

Not when they're poor quality bootlegs .. for eg one recently identified in another thread here (from an appearance on New Year's Eve) .. the sound was appalling, and I stopped watching it as soon as it started to play and this became obvious. Meat may well think that poor quality recordings do nothing at all to enhance his reputation .. in fact may give his detractors a chance to score points.

And when it involves bootlegs, or studio tapes which were not released for public listening, or mis-appropriated sound board tapes .. come one, come all .. they were not released with his permission. Why would fans want to do something that he wasn't happy with? And if you take a stand against bootlegs, that too is come one, come all, whatever the quality.


This is aimed strongly at whoever is deleting the vids

If you mean Meat, why not do this privately? Because if Meat has asked they be removed, this way just provides an opportunity for those who want bootlegs to be available on Utube to be critical of his wish to have them taken down.

The way I see it as a fan and supporter of Meat, he gives so much that I am perfectly happy to accede to his wishes if there are things on Utube he wants removed.

Caryl

WhenItComes2LovingU
09 Jan 2010, 21:40
It might be wise to remind Meat of the following, Wario:

In regards to the legality of the video home recording act settled by Congress with the Home Recording Act (P.L. 102-563,106 Stat.4237, Codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001-1010) in October 1992, no action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital or analog recording medium or based on the noncommercial use of such a device or medium. No rights are intended, expressed or implied.

To call for removal of the videos, the copyright holder has to allege infringement of copyright, and by extension violation of the above-mentioned act. This means that such removals of the videos, under U.S. law, are technically a miscarriage of justice. Red Pony Tours, and every other copyright holder out there, should know better, to say nothing of the fact that Red Pony's ownership is questionable unless provable; for example, Red Pony called for the removal of Meat and Patti's CHSIB at Party in the Park '03, but unless they signed an agreement stating otherwise, the footage thereof should belong to the Party in the Park organizers and therefore it should be their call, and not Meat's. I see a lot of over-stepping and shoddy legal work here, and I'm not sure I like it.

CarylB
09 Jan 2010, 23:05
Over here "home recording" is recording from TV for non-commercial use, and was protected to prevent litigation when home tape recording devices were introduced. I would have thought that recording live performances in contravention of the venue's regulations and stipulations on the tickets was not "home recording".

Caryl

Wario
09 Jan 2010, 23:27
whatever. let the ban come if it does. ive lost interest in youtube anyway

mickp
10 Jan 2010, 09:42
I can see both sides of this. I've never been a fan of audience video recordings generally due to the poor quality. I'd make exception on really rare stuff, eg the 88 video. Audio boots is sightly different to me as I grew up in the pre internet era where compact cassettes of concerts were the only way of sharing. And they captured the moment - too many official 'live' things these days have more studio time on them than actual live performance

The only things I ever upload to youtube were video recordings from TV broadcasts most of which I recorded myself at the time. Many on this board and in other forums are Meat fans from the Bat 2 era and will have seen or heard little of his live stuff pre that era. That's what I wanted to share. For me that was his best period 78- 96 say. That's not dismissing entirely what he's done since but that era is the one I lived through so it means more to me. I enjoyed sharing them and had some great contacts and discussions in the process. To me those are more important than the sharing now, hence why I've removed them. I could match some of Warioloafs comments. I've had 5 members of the NLE give similar comments - they were really delighted to see their old performances

I guess what I was trying to do from airing that stuff was to encourage Meat to open the vaults and get some of this stuff out on official release. The 78 tour was a start - I'd really like to see a 'ramones style' alive dvd set covering the 80s and 90s

Monstro
10 Jan 2010, 11:03
It might be wise to remind Meat of the following, Wario:

In regards to the legality of the video home recording act settled by Congress with the Home Recording Act (P.L. 102-563,106 Stat.4237, Codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001-1010) in October 1992, no action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital or analog recording medium or based on the noncommercial use of such a device or medium. No rights are intended, expressed or implied.

To call for removal of the videos, the copyright holder has to allege infringement of copyright, and by extension violation of the above-mentioned act. This means that such removals of the videos, under U.S. law, are technically a miscarriage of justice. Red Pony Tours, and every other copyright holder out there, should know better, to say nothing of the fact that Red Pony's ownership is questionable unless provable; for example, Red Pony called for the removal of Meat and Patti's CHSIB at Party in the Park '03, but unless they signed an agreement stating otherwise, the footage thereof should belong to the Party in the Park organizers and therefore it should be their call, and not Meat's. I see a lot of over-stepping and shoddy legal work here, and I'm not sure I like it.

From what I can make out this act has no relevance to a youtube defence as youtube is a commercial medium, they make a shit load of money. Whilst the individual uploader is uploading/sharing videos in a noncommercial manner the medium in which they are stored/shared/displayed is a commercial venture. Meat or whoever isn't contacting individual uploaders to ask for items to be removed, the onus is on youtube as it is they who are at risk of being sued etc

djfierce
10 Jan 2010, 22:58
well what whenitcomestolovingyou is quoting is completely irrelevant, since when did U.S law govern international mediums.

The yt thing is a trade off from all of the big PRS companies (who pretty much every big artist is a member) around the world, they are the ones who decided what is or isnt allowed on yt, they are the guidlines that yt follow, hence the ridiculous disclaimer that yt put up before you start uploading.

And the party in the park thing. The artist still has the right to have the video taken down, they still own their performance. Usually these performances are only signed to be used BY the organisers, therefore they can call foul on anyone but PITP posting videos of the performance.

I love seeing the videos on yt, but am getting a little pissed with reading all this know all shite from people. It was great to see the vids and i hope Meat is a little more selective in future as to what's taken down, the copyright was infringed whether you like it or not so you cant really complain that it's been taken down.
And btw i'm talking as someone who thought Wario's page was awesome!