Zappa.com

Or cathouses, for that matter.

_________________
Stay with me flagrantly and we'll have ecstasy for all eternity.

Sure. But back then, bootlegged materials were physical items that were being sold and he didn't get any money out of it. People were actually taping his concerts and physically printing albums of his music and selling them and keeping the dough. Youtube is closer to an on-demand radio station than selling bootlegged albums. It's free commercials for bands. The people posting songs don't make a profit and the bands get free exposure without doing any work. I can't imagine him being too pissed off at his volunteers working Youtube to raise awareness for him. Politicians DREAM of masses of people voluntarily going out and spending time and energy to raise awareness of them for free.

_________________
“The person who stands up and says, 'This is stupid,' either is asked to behave or, worse, is greeted with a cheerful 'Yes, we know! Isn't it terrific!" -Frank Zappa

I agree with those sentiments. It is a different world and Frank never shied away from using the best, most advanced methods to get his works heard.

I was just saying that he balanced the interests of public presentation with intellectual property rights.

When he was in full battle mode with Warner Brothers, he played all the tapes for Lather on the radio and told people to tape it (LA radio, so I've heard, I am on the other coast).

_________________
If we're dumb . . .
Then God is dumb . . .
(An' maybe even a little bit ugly on the side)

I'm sure FZ wouldn't mind if samples or parts of videos he produced were on YouTube, but I'm also sure he wouldn't have endorsed any materials not vetted by him, and he wouldn't have approved of large scale posting of complete commercially available material.

I don't agree that YouTube is exactly like the radio, where if one were to copy broadcasted material, then the copy would suffer an appreciable loss of quality versus a commercially available material (like a dvd). With YouTube you get exactly what is posted, on demand. Radio does not provide that type of on-demand service or provide the quality of the source material.

My Valley Girl vid had 48,000 views before it was withdrawn after complaint from the ZFT. It had four and a half stars and 103 comments, mainly from people who enjoyed it. Amongst these comments was an ongoing discussion about how strange that now a lot of American girls (and others around the world) talk like this. Some said it was started by this record (what???). There were loads of comments such as "Bitchen", Barf me out with a spoon", "Far out" etc.

I read every comment and got to realise that for a lot of viewers this was the first time they had heard this song, and mostly they liked it. They could not copy it or download it from YouTube (perhaps illegally there are means), but could be introduced to Zappa music which may inspire them to go out and buy some.

I am having a job understanding why the compaint was made although as I have said before I understand that I was infringing copyright, but surely in the same way that some of our forum members use a picture of a Simpsons character along with their name. Did they ask the owners of the Simpsons if they could use the image because unauthorised reproductions are not allowed?

_________________
Pass me the speaking tube

Your Valley Girl selection doesn't seem to me as a big rights problem, especially since it doesn't appear to me to be infringing on any commercially available material or any integrity of the artist issue. I can understand your frustration. If it was the whole ZPZ dvd or something like that, it would be a different story. It also would be a problem if the selection was a poorly produced video of a live performance, for example, which may raise the integrity issue.

I was making a general comment on YouTube, and another observation that is it not exactly like traditional radio broadcasts.

No shit...that's why I used the words "closer to" instead of the words "exactly like".

_________________
“The person who stands up and says, 'This is stupid,' either is asked to behave or, worse, is greeted with a cheerful 'Yes, we know! Isn't it terrific!" -Frank Zappa

OK, you're right about the wording, but there is no such thing as an on-demand radio station, unless you're referring to mp3 file-sharing sites, which of course are subject to the aforementioned rights issues. One should not expect that copyrighted material be allowed to be used without permission, regardless of intended purpose. Even though the intent is clearly positive, legal rights still are applicable. It's up to the rights-holder to exercise these rights or not, and to grant permission to use the source material or not. Obviously Gail exercises her rights aggressively, and doesn't readily grant permission for use.

I'll agree with many that she goes way overboard with this and this may be counter-productive in the long-run. It certainly has pissed a lot people/fans off. I have a feeling that any FZ/ZPZ material found on any popular sites like YouTube will be pulled if she/her legal team finds it. I don't think they are scrutinizing every item and deciding whether it's worthy or not. So relatively benign, harmless postings get whacked in process.

I clearly see the difference between radio and on-demand media like YouTube. FZ never had the chance to decide about it, he was gone too soon.

I ain't no apologist for nobody but I do think that we 'old people' see the world differently than the internet generation. I sincerely hope that FZ's art is viewed and heard now and in the future, but I think sites like YouTube have a responsibility too. What if someone got hold of an unreleased FZ studio performance and decided to stream it or make a video with it? Wouldn't the ZFT have recourse?

I just feel that there are issues here that need to be sorted out.

FZ said this:

FREE IS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR NOTHING
OR DO NOTHING
WE WANT TO BE FREE
FREE AS THE WIND

FREE IS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR NOTHING
OR DO NOTHING
WE WANT TO BE FREE
FREE AS THE WIND

FREE IS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR NOTHING
OR DO NOTHING
WE WANT TO BE FREE
FREE AS THE WIND

_________________
If we're dumb . . .
Then God is dumb . . .
(An' maybe even a little bit ugly on the side)

Definitely YouTube is culpable, just like Napster, if it hosts widespread posting of un-permissioned copyrighted material. YouTube profits indirectly from all the content posted,legit or not. YouTube huge value in $ is based on usage, not from charging money like iTunes which, I assume passes on some of the profits to whoever owns the source. YouTube simply pulls it if it appears to violate a copyright law, after someone complains about it. If ZFT has the rights to any kind of anything, then they can choose to take legal action. That's the only choice they have.

The bigger problem is that all of this crap is handled by lawyers who have taken over almost all forms of interaction in America. This fact is inescapable and unless there is wide-spread tort-reform, we'll be wallowing in it forever.

Tort reform, and a better understanding of the world in the 21st Century.

_________________
If we're dumb . . .
Then God is dumb . . .
(An' maybe even a little bit ugly on the side)

for his own use, yes (maybe). if he hadn't come up with a better way to use the internet for his own purposes. which I am sure he would have.

but that was not the point here. the origin of the thread was about unauthorized use of a frank zappa recording. I don't think he would have allowed that.

_________________
"bit of nostalgia for the old folks."

Yes, I now realise that the ZFT have told me that my head smells. After being a Zappa fan for nearly forty years I'm moving on.....

_________________
Pass me the speaking tube

Eh, it's still on project playlist.

shook it 4 times last night after a nice long wizz; sent 4 cents to the man

_________________