The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => General On Topic Discussions => Topic started by: jackjachman on August 15, 2016, 09:41:58 AM



Title: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: jackjachman on August 15, 2016, 09:41:58 AM
As some posters here have noticed, the last week or so has seen the swift deletion of the three most active Beach Boys Youtube channels offering unreleased material; Tim K (The_Beach), Scott G (jiggy22), and my own: jacksdeos. A terrible occasion for listening if there ever was one. All three of us had our own followings that crossed over with each other, and it was always nice to see three different styles we each had of releasing such fantastic music to you guys. Sorry to anyone who was a fan and can no longer take a load off and listen to what we put out and the work we put in to improving it along the way.

From what I gather, we all got the same notifications: a notice of copyright infringement on behalf of Brother Records. I was completely incensed at first, understandably, and all the frenzied thoughts in my head turned to the same question I've been asking for a long time now: why not EMBRACE this stuff being on the largest hub of music in the world, Youtube? Not even as the effective 21st century marketing tool and legacy reappraisal service that it is (done entirely for free by fans), but why not actually start monetizing the uploads of songs not yet released in an age where the same songs can just as easily be found for download on a forum somewhere with a quick google search? Having your music be on Youtube gives it almost endless reach across the entire world, and to shun it's spread so decisively is definitely a bummer of a major degree.

Something that Scott pointed out as well was that the videos that were getting taken down seemed to pertain to the more famous bootleg material that is STILL so ripe for offical release, such as the Adult/Child and Sweet Insanity albums along with the Cocaine Sessions bootleg. That one in particular was turning into the most popular on my channel, and it truly saddens me that the average listener can no longer hear some of the more haunting and memorable parts of that bootleg, along with the excellent sounding version of the Paley Sessions album I found online. This brings up the question of "does this mean that the music is intended to be released by the record company?", which is an exciting one, but definitely a possibility I won't hold my breath for. There still remains an overabundance of quality, sometimes game-changing material (see: Proposed Brother Bonus Tracks, Sea of Tunes Rarities, Unsurpassed Masters series) that has not officially seen the light of day in the past five decades of bootlegging, so if it hasn't been released in all the time, then why would they do it now? Again, these can be found as downloads without a whole lot of difficulty, but let's be frank, nothing beats the ease and accessibility of Youtube, one of the most popular and necessary places in the entirety of the internet.

I'll swiftly step down from this soap box I found here and instead share some love to Tim K and Scott G for doing the extremely important work of fanning the flames of all of our collective Beach Boys love with exciting and provoking content that made us hear a truly special band in an entirely different light. I think that's beautiful work, and I sure as hell appreciated it.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: jackjachman on August 15, 2016, 10:30:17 AM
accidentally quoted my own post, it's been awhile since I've been message boarding.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 15, 2016, 10:53:19 AM
Tim K. , Scott G, and jackdeos are fan's fans. Thanks for putting in the time and effort for making BBs fandom a better place with all those great unreleased songs on youtube! 8)

Release this stuff dammit!


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: The_Beach on August 15, 2016, 11:53:54 AM
RIP to our three Youtube channel's! I dont know why the Brother Records would want to take down the rare music if they dont plan on releasing it all in the near future! I uploaded the rare stuff to help get new beach boy fans or to get old ones back. I was out of the Beach Boys for a long time until I started collecting some of the rare music! I dot know about you guys but it does get tiring of listening to the same old songs over and over with a lack of new Beach Boys material! in over two decades we only got one new album of TWGMTR.

I Guess Brother Records isn't looking to expand to new or regain more Beach Boys fanatics that are tired of listening to the same songs! If they have unreleased material they might as well release it to gain some money and fans instead of keeping in the vaults fade away forever!!

I just hope people that wanted are music got it off youtube before it was too late! Unfortunately no new fans will get to hear it.  >:(


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: terrei on August 15, 2016, 12:31:40 PM
Brother Records can't monetize the videos because the recordings of those songs have never been published. For that same reason, they shouldn't be able to DMCA most of them. But they did anyway.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: DonnyL on August 15, 2016, 12:53:36 PM
I always hope that this type of activity means that the group may be considering releasing more material in the near future.

However, I would like to point out something that almost never gets mentioned in these types of threads:

I think there is a very real possibility that the Beach Boys themselves don’t like unauthorized material floating around out there. They generally have been fairly involved in what gets released and what doesn’t (The “Rarities” album from 1983 was in fact removed due to the group threatening legal action because they felt the material was substandard).

The argument of “Hey, people want this and there’s money to be made, they just need to release them!” is what we usually hear, but I think we often dismiss the idea that there are valid artistic reasons (which we may or may not agree with) that some of these tracks will never see the light of day.

Don’t get me wrong, if it were up to me Adult Child (with the original mixes) and the Paley Sessions would be released in deluxe vinyl sets immediately. And it’s a crime that “Carry Me Home” is still in the can. But these are not our works, and these decisions are not ours.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: bringahorseinhere? on August 15, 2016, 01:40:14 PM
this is sad news. I frequently visited those channels just to hear the stuff I don't have bought or d/l'd elsewhere.
it was great to hear the new stuff you don't find anywhere else.  In hindsight, I would have ripped the audio.
let's hope Brother are putting this into a perspective soon that is officially made to us, but I doubt we'll see it.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: jiggy22 on August 15, 2016, 04:19:53 PM
I always hope that this type of activity means that the group may be considering releasing more material in the near future.

However, I would like to point out something that almost never gets mentioned in these types of threads:

I think there is a very real possibility that the Beach Boys themselves don’t like unauthorized material floating around out there. They generally have been fairly involved in what gets released and what doesn’t (The “Rarities” album from 1983 was in fact removed due to the group threatening legal action because they felt the material was substandard).

The argument of “Hey, people want this and there’s money to be made, they just need to release them!” is what we usually hear, but I think we often dismiss the idea that there are valid artistic reasons (which we may or may not agree with) that some of these tracks will never see the light of day.

Don’t get me wrong, if it were up to me Adult Child (with the original mixes) and the Paley Sessions would be released in deluxe vinyl sets immediately. And it’s a crime that “Carry Me Home” is still in the can. But these are not our works, and these decisions are not ours.


That's a great point you make here. Most of the time, there's a reason why some of these tracks have never been officially released ("Battle Hymn of the Republic", "Wrinkles", "At the Hop", etc). Some of it just isn't good! But of course there are tons and tons of other tracks that 100% deserve official releases. But to be fair, I believe it was Bruce who admitted that he was a fan of the Rarities album. Sometimes I believe that Brother Records and Capitol don't want to release this material because it would be extremely hard to market to anyone other than the harcore fans; the "one-percenters". Do I dare say that bootleggers, despite their actions clearly being illegal, are somewhat of the "unsung heroes" of the groups' hardcore fans? Think of how much less material we would have if they didn't go against the groups' wishes and unofficially release their material! This may be delving into a completely different conversation, and I am definitely not condoning the actions taken by bootleggers, but I've just been pretty thankful that there have been so many people willing to share what's out there, official or not. Not just bootleggers, but fan-mixers such as Jack, Tim, and myself.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: GoofyJeff on August 15, 2016, 04:29:49 PM
Maybe if the Beach Boys Central website had launched A FULL DECADE AGO like Alan Boyd had intended, we'd be able to purchase these tracks legitimately and not have to worry about DMCA notices on YouTube.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: Kid Presentable on August 15, 2016, 05:11:31 PM
It helps me to just consider the perspective of if I were the people that made that music... with no caveats or questions asked, I would want full control over whether something I created will be made public or stay private.  I feel bad about listening to the Cocaine Sessions for those reasons.  It feels like spying on an uninhibited private moment, that surely none of them want to be made public. 

With that being said I am going to miss these alternate albums greatly, they really got me thinking differently about the BBs and I hope that as much unreleased stuff as possible sees a legitimate public light of day.  Thank you to jack, tim, and scott. 


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: DonnyL on August 15, 2016, 05:19:33 PM
I always hope that this type of activity means that the group may be considering releasing more material in the near future.

However, I would like to point out something that almost never gets mentioned in these types of threads:

I think there is a very real possibility that the Beach Boys themselves don’t like unauthorized material floating around out there. They generally have been fairly involved in what gets released and what doesn’t (The “Rarities” album from 1983 was in fact removed due to the group threatening legal action because they felt the material was substandard).

The argument of “Hey, people want this and there’s money to be made, they just need to release them!” is what we usually hear, but I think we often dismiss the idea that there are valid artistic reasons (which we may or may not agree with) that some of these tracks will never see the light of day.

Don’t get me wrong, if it were up to me Adult Child (with the original mixes) and the Paley Sessions would be released in deluxe vinyl sets immediately. And it’s a crime that “Carry Me Home” is still in the can. But these are not our works, and these decisions are not ours.


That's a great point you make here. Most of the time, there's a reason why some of these tracks have never been officially released ("Battle Hymn of the Republic", "Wrinkles", "At the Hop", etc). Some of it just isn't good! But of course there are tons and tons of other tracks that 100% deserve official releases. But to be fair, I believe it was Bruce who admitted that he was a fan of the Rarities album. Sometimes I believe that Brother Records and Capitol don't want to release this material because it would be extremely hard to market to anyone other than the harcore fans; the "one-percenters". Do I dare say that bootleggers, despite their actions clearly being illegal, are somewhat of the "unsung heroes" of the groups' hardcore fans? Think of how much less material we would have if they didn't go against the groups' wishes and unofficially release their material! This may be delving into a completely different conversation, and I am definitely not condoning the actions taken by bootleggers, but I've just been pretty thankful that there have been so many people willing to share what's out there, official or not. Not just bootleggers, but fan-mixers such as Jack, Tim, and myself.

I think there are elements in the group who are more commercial-minded (Mike of course ... possibly Brian to some extent also) and I'm sure decisions are made based on how they affect the group's "Brand", etc. ... but there's evidence of group members making decisions to keep certain tracks off of various releases, etc.

I'm inclined the assume the "strictly business" management side of BRI would be interested in releasing any product that would generate a decent profit. But archival projects also take time and money, so they may very well have determined (correctly or incorrectly) that the market is too small for such releases. I'd personally say there's a decent untapped market for "hip" Beach Boys releases that could be very profitable if marketed appropriately. And I'm not talking about another Pet Sounds box with a "newly discovered" live take of "Sloop John B" to keep us hardcore types interested.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: mikeddonn on August 15, 2016, 05:20:50 PM
If it had not have been for the SMiLE bootlegs the legend would never have become what it did.  It converted a lot of people to the group and kept them marketable when archival releases came out.  A fact the record company actually celebrated at the time of the SMiLE Sessions release in 2011, when they asked people to post their bootlegs on the Facebook page!


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: Robbie Mac on August 15, 2016, 05:25:52 PM
That is sad to hear, guys. I enjoyed having easy access to that stuff. I'm sorry to hear that BRI decided to lay down the law (with no intention of actually releasing any of the stuff they complained about). Generally, the reason why copyright holders do this is maintain their "moral higher ground" on their material.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: DonnyL on August 15, 2016, 05:26:38 PM
If it had not have been for the SMiLE bootlegs the legend would never have become what it did.  It converted a lot of people to the group and kept them marketable when archival releases came out.  A fact the record company actually celebrated at the time of the SMiLE Sessions release in 2011, when they asked people to post their bootlegs on the Facebook page!

I disagree with that. In fact, when I first heard SMILE (in 1992, via a cassette dub given to me in-person by a private individual ... ha pre-internet days), I was kind of disappointed after reading so much about it. I mean, it was magical and all, but hearing the endless "Heroes and Villains"/"Bicycle Rider" takes and stuff like "Holidays" didn't quite live up to the hype in my 13-year old mind.

Certainly the myth was large and meaningful long before the bootlegs ... through books, etc.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on August 15, 2016, 08:19:48 PM
I'm of two minds...as an artist myself, I can understand why bootlegs are frowned up. However, if nobody is profiting off of it, then what's the issue? Me personally, I'd be willing to pay to hear unreleased stuff. I'm an obsessive.  I want to hear everything that exists.

And yes, Beach Boys Central should've went live, and would've solved a lot of this...


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: John Malone on August 15, 2016, 08:30:24 PM
Legal disputes over dissemination of material (such as sports broadcast rights, internet sharing of files that otherwise wouldn't be, rights to television syndication, etc.) almost always result in fans/listeners being denied.

It seems sometimes that making nothing available can be more advantageous than advancing a brand's popularity.

Sad.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on August 15, 2016, 08:37:49 PM
Quote
Legal disputes over dissemination of material (such as sports broadcast rights, internet sharing of files that otherwise wouldn't be, rights to television syndication, etc.) almost always result in fans/listeners being denied. [/quote[

Yeah, and that bothers me. At the end of the day, it is about the fans, because without them, none of us would have careers (and in my case, I use that term VERY loosely).

With my band's previous release, we sold extremely little. SO...everyone who did purchase it got a download with a bunch of extra songs/outtakes for free.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: tpesky on August 15, 2016, 09:02:36 PM
The BB blow it in another way by not capitalizing on releasing digital material including live concerts.  It's a limited market  for the general public but BB fans would seek it out and buy it and BRI could make some money.  But...they wouldn't be the BB if they didn't blow these types of things.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: halblaineisgood on August 15, 2016, 10:13:18 PM
Now we can all watch monetized beach boy content and Brother Records will be saved!


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: bringahorseinhere? on August 15, 2016, 11:02:48 PM
long live the bootleg!  this is why we seek to alternate means to get what we want.
in the end, who wins? it sure ain't no record company.  they have brought all of this
on themselves in the past and they still don't learn.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: Da Doo Ron Ron on August 15, 2016, 11:13:22 PM
Just make another channel and reupload the videos.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: bb4ever on August 16, 2016, 06:11:23 AM
Do the Beach Boys still own Brother Records?   Who runs it?



Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: HeyJude on August 16, 2016, 07:01:26 AM
Do the Beach Boys still own Brother Records?   Who runs it?



"Brother Records" isn't really a "record label" anymore, and hasn't been for decades. It's basically the Beach Boys' equivalent of the Beatles' Apple Corps. "Brother Records Inc" (or BRI as we often call it for the sake of brevity) is basically the holding company for the Beach Boys, and it is a privately held company with Brian, Al, Mike, and Carl's estate as the shareholders. While it uses the name of their old record label, it's essentially "Beach Boys Inc."

All I will add to this is that any suggestion that these recent copyright claims might mean the opening of the floodgates of the archives is imminent is probably false. BRI has been submitting copyright claims on YouTube, eBay, and probably other sites as well, for *years* now. I think they just simply don't police the stuff 24/7, and when they do it's clear that someone has figuratively (or literally) woken up from a nap and decided to start submitting claims.

Must be an awesome job; there's some guy (or gal) whose job it is to just type "Beach Boys" into various search engines at arbitrary intervals and submit copyright claims.

On top of all of the other complaints, which are obviously of varying moral/ethical/practical validity, it's also a bummer because sometimes legitimately non-infringing stuff gets swept up in these mass copyright claims. Stuff not owned by the copyright holder gets claimed. Stuff that actually is "fair use" gets claimed, etc. It's a never-ending fight on YouTube.

Someone needs to talk to BRI and tell them how claiming every little video and audio snippet on YouTube worked out for Prince. When he died, there were easily thousands and thousands of younger people who had little or no clue about most of his work (and certainly at least knew much less of him than they should have), because there was and is NOTHING of his on YouTube in terms of his main body of studio work. It was notoriously getting pulled *very quickly* whenever it appeared. I'm not even a Prince fan and I noticed this; you could never even go take a quick listen to "Raspberry Beret" or whatever. He had someone (or several people) seemingly employed *full time* simply to catch stuff on YouTube.

This YouTube stuff is all ass backwards anyway. Right now, there are OODLES of commercially-released Beach Boys tracks and albums on YouTube that can be listened to and downloaded (using the million YouTube downloader websites). You can literally use YouTube as a *completely* free version of Spotify/Pandora, only with the option of also downloading the stuff too. Why isn't BRI pulling *that* stuff down? THAT'S the stuff that's literally eating into their profits. Random people are posting *hundreds* and *thousands* of Beach Boys tracks simply ripped from commercial BB CDs (or even the recent digital-only copyright extension releases) on YouTube, and in at least *some* of those cases, they are *monetizing* those clips and actually making money off of them.

There are almost surely more random people on YouTube making money off of famous, well-known Beach Boys tracks than anyone posting murky "Cocaine Sessions" snippets or weird "Adult Child" tracks.

Look at this YouTube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QCZ_bv9aLc

I may be wrong, but I don't think the YouTube user "MorseMoose79" is an authorized Beach Boys/Brother Records distributor. But this clip of "Don't Worry Baby" has nearly TEN MILLION views and was uploaded nearly TEN YEARS AGO. Why is *that* allowed? If it's monetized (I got a video ad in front of it when I clicked on it, so I'm guessing it is monetized), then "MorseMoose79" presumably has made some coin off nearly ten million views.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: Joel Goldenberg on August 16, 2016, 07:45:25 AM
Now that the MIU California Feelin' reimagined video has been deleted, I would like someone to tell me the name of the song with the Carl lead vocal that preceded My Diane. It's great and should have been officially released.

Update: Found it! It's It Could Be Anything AKA Where We Are


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: Magic Transistor Radio on August 16, 2016, 07:48:51 AM
I was a big fan of those videos like anyone else, but may I give a more optimistic theory! I recall 5 years ago a lot of Smile material is was taken down. Shortly after the Smile Sessions box set was released! Also, I can name the Good Vibrations box set, Endless Harmony cd, Hawthorne cd, and Made In California and several others over the years with previously unreleased material! So could it be that they do intend to release more stuff but they like to spread them out over time?


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: Bicyclerider on August 16, 2016, 08:26:50 AM
Cool it for a few months and reupload in a way that doesn't cause the alarms  to go off at Brother (i.e. don't have them come up in a search for Beach Boys rarities, for example).  They'll be harder to find but that's the point, isn't it?


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: DonnyL on August 16, 2016, 11:33:40 AM
This YouTube stuff is all ass backwards anyway. Right now, there are OODLES of commercially-released Beach Boys tracks and albums on YouTube that can be listened to and downloaded (using the million YouTube downloader websites). You can literally use YouTube as a *completely* free version of Spotify/Pandora, only with the option of also downloading the stuff too. Why isn't BRI pulling *that* stuff down? THAT'S the stuff that's literally eating into their profits. Random people are posting *hundreds* and *thousands* of Beach Boys tracks simply ripped from commercial BB CDs (or even the recent digital-only copyright extension releases) on YouTube, and in at least *some* of those cases, they are *monetizing* those clips and actually making money off of them.

This relates to the points I was making. They seem to be specifically concerned with unreleased material. Probably for one (or two, or all) of three possible reasons:

1. The group members (or corporation) don't want what they perceive to be substandard material floating around in public places.

2. They're planning on releasing this material at some point in the future, and don't want to spoil the novelty.

3. They can monetize released material, but not unreleased recordings. I haven't followed things too closely, but BRI doesn't seem to take issue with the sort of "promotional" material being used on YouTube. This material actually can be monetized, and likely is ... in a way similar to Spotify, etc. For instance, for my own recordings, I get a few cents here and there for YouTube views (videos are somehow "auto detected" to include my known recordings). They may just have a blanket policy to periodically go through and locate videos that are not being monetized and report them.



Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: DonnyL on August 16, 2016, 11:37:48 AM
long live the bootleg!  this is why we seek to alternate means to get what we want.
in the end, who wins? it sure ain't no record company.  they have brought all of this
on themselves in the past and they still don't learn.

It isn't "The Record Company" doing this, it's "The Beach Boys".

Look at this YouTube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QCZ_bv9aLc

I may be wrong, but I don't think the YouTube user "MorseMoose79" is an authorized Beach Boys/Brother Records distributor. But this clip of "Don't Worry Baby" has nearly TEN MILLION views and was uploaded nearly TEN YEARS AGO. Why is *that* allowed? If it's monetized (I got a video ad in front of it when I clicked on it, so I'm guessing it is monetized), then "MorseMoose79" presumably has made some coin off nearly ten million views.

BRI has no claim to "Don't Worry Baby". The Beach Boys have owned most of their own masters since about mid-1969. Capitol owns most of the pre-1970 masters. So BRI cannot make any claims to the sound recordings for pre-Sunflower material on YouTube (that's up to Capitol).

When Capitol (or Warner in the '70s and CBS in the '80s) reissue post-1969 material, BRI presumably leases the sound recordings to the label.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: HeyJude on August 16, 2016, 11:58:45 AM
long live the bootleg!  this is why we seek to alternate means to get what we want.
in the end, who wins? it sure ain't no record company.  they have brought all of this
on themselves in the past and they still don't learn.

It isn't "The Record Company" doing this, it's "The Beach Boys".

Look at this YouTube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QCZ_bv9aLc

I may be wrong, but I don't think the YouTube user "MorseMoose79" is an authorized Beach Boys/Brother Records distributor. But this clip of "Don't Worry Baby" has nearly TEN MILLION views and was uploaded nearly TEN YEARS AGO. Why is *that* allowed? If it's monetized (I got a video ad in front of it when I clicked on it, so I'm guessing it is monetized), then "MorseMoose79" presumably has made some coin off nearly ten million views.

BRI has no claim to "Don't Worry Baby". The Beach Boys have owned most of their own masters since about mid-1969. Capitol owns most of the pre-1970 masters. So BRI cannot make any claims to the sound recordings for pre-Sunflower material on YouTube (that's up to Capitol).

BRI doesn't own the finished master mix of "Don't Worry Baby." They probably *shouldn't* be able to issue a copyright takedown in terms of the sound recording. But BRI *has* issued copyright notices/takedowns on eBay, for instance, for recordings they don't own, including pre-1970 material. I'd venture to guess *something* pre-1970 has probably also been yanked on YouTube at one point or another. If it has "Beach Boys" anywhere on it, there are also trademark infringement issues at play as well in some cases. BRI does own the "Beach Boys" trademark itself.

What actually happens is, if BRI (or Capitol/UME) tell YouTube or eBay something infringes, they just yank it down. I don't believe BRI sends any proof of copyright ownership.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: HeyJude on August 16, 2016, 12:09:34 PM
This YouTube stuff is all ass backwards anyway. Right now, there are OODLES of commercially-released Beach Boys tracks and albums on YouTube that can be listened to and downloaded (using the million YouTube downloader websites). You can literally use YouTube as a *completely* free version of Spotify/Pandora, only with the option of also downloading the stuff too. Why isn't BRI pulling *that* stuff down? THAT'S the stuff that's literally eating into their profits. Random people are posting *hundreds* and *thousands* of Beach Boys tracks simply ripped from commercial BB CDs (or even the recent digital-only copyright extension releases) on YouTube, and in at least *some* of those cases, they are *monetizing* those clips and actually making money off of them.

This relates to the points I was making. They seem to be specifically concerned with unreleased material. Probably for one (or two, or all) of three possible reasons:

1. The group members (or corporation) don't want what they perceive to be substandard material floating around in public places.

2. They're planning on releasing this material at some point in the future, and don't want to spoil the novelty.

3. They can monetize released material, but not unreleased recordings. I haven't followed things too closely, but BRI doesn't seem to take issue with the sort of "promotional" material being used on YouTube. This material actually can be monetized, and likely is ... in a way similar to Spotify, etc. For instance, for my own recordings, I get a few cents here and there for YouTube views (videos are somehow "auto detected" to include my known recordings). They may just have a blanket policy to periodically go through and locate videos that are not being monetized and report them.


#3 is a very murky issue. I doubt monetization is the main motivation behind any of this, but who knows.

#2 is doubtful. BRI has been issuing copyright notices for years, and it has never regularly directly coincided either in terms of timing or content (e.g. taking down stuff and then releasing that *same* material officially) with moves to "open the vaults." Perhaps they did an extra sweep of "Smile" stuff prior to the "Smile" sessions.

#1 is, I guess, a factor to some degree. It's just weird, though, because several if not all of the surviving members have posted YouTube links to *unauthorized* audience videos (and perhaps even pro-shot videos) of concerts, which are often *more* unflattering than, say, a studio take of "Carry Me Home" popping up on YouTube.

My best guess is that BRI simply does a more lazy, less consistent version of what Prince did for years in terms of just sweeping for stuff to pull down in a somewhat arbitrary fashion. Perhaps there's an instruction that BRI wants "boot" material pulled.

If BRI thinks anything good for them will come out of *not* digging into the archives (the zillionth reissue of "Pet Sounds" or other albums doesn't count) while simultaneously trying to scrub the internet of outtakes, then their management is even  *worse* than I thought it was.

It's a no-brainer. Sure, scrub YouTube of sh**ty sounding tracks. But then do the obvious like other bands and issue lavish boxed sets for albums like "Sunflower" with multiple discs. Make fans *want* to toss the crappy boots for something that sounds better and is nicer all-around. When the big boxed set treatment can't be justified, then issue stuff digitally.

Five or ten *key* archival boxed set length releases (whether actually in a boxed set or simply digitally) would suppress the desire for a huge hunk of the "outtake" material floating around out there.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: DonnyL on August 16, 2016, 12:10:42 PM
long live the bootleg!  this is why we seek to alternate means to get what we want.
in the end, who wins? it sure ain't no record company.  they have brought all of this
on themselves in the past and they still don't learn.

It isn't "The Record Company" doing this, it's "The Beach Boys".

Look at this YouTube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QCZ_bv9aLc

I may be wrong, but I don't think the YouTube user "MorseMoose79" is an authorized Beach Boys/Brother Records distributor. But this clip of "Don't Worry Baby" has nearly TEN MILLION views and was uploaded nearly TEN YEARS AGO. Why is *that* allowed? If it's monetized (I got a video ad in front of it when I clicked on it, so I'm guessing it is monetized), then "MorseMoose79" presumably has made some coin off nearly ten million views.

BRI has no claim to "Don't Worry Baby". The Beach Boys have owned most of their own masters since about mid-1969. Capitol owns most of the pre-1970 masters. So BRI cannot make any claims to the sound recordings for pre-Sunflower material on YouTube (that's up to Capitol).

BRI doesn't own the finished master mix of "Don't Worry Baby." They probably *shouldn't* be able to issue a copyright takedown in terms of the sound recording. But BRI *has* issued copyright notices/takedowns on eBay, for instance, for recordings they don't own, including pre-1970 material. I'd venture to guess *something* pre-1970 has probably also been yanked on YouTube at one point or another. If it has "Beach Boys" anywhere on it, there are also trademark infringement issues at play as well in some cases. BRI does own the "Beach Boys" trademark itself.

What actually happens is, if BRI (or Capitol/UME) tell YouTube or eBay something infringes, they just yank it down. I don't believe BRI sends any proof of copyright ownership.

When The Beach Boys come knocking at your door threatening a lawsuit, you close up shop no questions asked !!!

But seriously ... eBay will yank ANYTHING if ANYONE reports something. Not sure if YouTube is loose in the same way.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: HeyJude on August 16, 2016, 12:14:59 PM
When The Beach Boys come knocking at your door threatening a lawsuit, you close up shop no questions asked !!!

But seriously ... eBay will yank ANYTHING if ANYONE reports something. Not sure if YouTube is loose in the same way.

It certainly is pretty random. Some questionable stuff stays up on YouTube for *years*, other stuff gets pulled after hours or days.

I don't think YouTube is afraid specifically of BRI or anything. It's more simply a case of YouTube not wanting to catch s**t from the various entertainment industries, and letting it be known that they'll pull something pretty much no-questions-asked.

There's a whole separate thing on YouTube that people continually fight in terms of "fair use" and excerpting small snippets of sound or video for critical reviews.

I've had eBay *incorrectly* pull stuff before; sometimes it's eBay's own internal sweep that does it, while other times it's at the behest of trademark/copyright holders. I had an authorized, legit Fender-branded little mini guitar replica up for sale. Had official tags on it and everything. eBay pulled it because there certainly are *also* a bunch of fake, unauthorized guitar replicas. So I reposted it with "FULLY AUTHORIZED" (or something like that) in the description and title.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: DonnyL on August 16, 2016, 01:19:49 PM
This YouTube stuff is all ass backwards anyway. Right now, there are OODLES of commercially-released Beach Boys tracks and albums on YouTube that can be listened to and downloaded (using the million YouTube downloader websites). You can literally use YouTube as a *completely* free version of Spotify/Pandora, only with the option of also downloading the stuff too. Why isn't BRI pulling *that* stuff down? THAT'S the stuff that's literally eating into their profits. Random people are posting *hundreds* and *thousands* of Beach Boys tracks simply ripped from commercial BB CDs (or even the recent digital-only copyright extension releases) on YouTube, and in at least *some* of those cases, they are *monetizing* those clips and actually making money off of them.

This relates to the points I was making. They seem to be specifically concerned with unreleased material. Probably for one (or two, or all) of three possible reasons:

1. The group members (or corporation) don't want what they perceive to be substandard material floating around in public places.

2. They're planning on releasing this material at some point in the future, and don't want to spoil the novelty.

3. They can monetize released material, but not unreleased recordings. I haven't followed things too closely, but BRI doesn't seem to take issue with the sort of "promotional" material being used on YouTube. This material actually can be monetized, and likely is ... in a way similar to Spotify, etc. For instance, for my own recordings, I get a few cents here and there for YouTube views (videos are somehow "auto detected" to include my known recordings). They may just have a blanket policy to periodically go through and locate videos that are not being monetized and report them.


#3 is a very murky issue. I doubt monetization is the main motivation behind any of this, but who knows.

#2 is doubtful. BRI has been issuing copyright notices for years, and it has never regularly directly coincided either in terms of timing or content (e.g. taking down stuff and then releasing that *same* material officially) with moves to "open the vaults." Perhaps they did an extra sweep of "Smile" stuff prior to the "Smile" sessions.

#1 is, I guess, a factor to some degree. It's just weird, though, because several if not all of the surviving members have posted YouTube links to *unauthorized* audience videos (and perhaps even pro-shot videos) of concerts, which are often *more* unflattering than, say, a studio take of "Carry Me Home" popping up on YouTube.

My best guess is that BRI simply does a more lazy, less consistent version of what Prince did for years in terms of just sweeping for stuff to pull down in a somewhat arbitrary fashion. Perhaps there's an instruction that BRI wants "boot" material pulled.

If BRI thinks anything good for them will come out of *not* digging into the archives (the zillionth reissue of "Pet Sounds" or other albums doesn't count) while simultaneously trying to scrub the internet of outtakes, then their management is even  *worse* than I thought it was.

It's a no-brainer. Sure, scrub YouTube of sh**ty sounding tracks. But then do the obvious like other bands and issue lavish boxed sets for albums like "Sunflower" with multiple discs. Make fans *want* to toss the crappy boots for something that sounds better and is nicer all-around. When the big boxed set treatment can't be justified, then issue stuff digitally.

Five or ten *key* archival boxed set length releases (whether actually in a boxed set or simply digitally) would suppress the desire for a huge hunk of the "outtake" material floating around out there.

I personally think it's a combination of the three points I made above, in varying degrees of importance.

#3 may be murky, but I think it's quite possible the logic goes along the lines of, "we can make SOME money on these (probably similar to the amount that can be made from Spotify, etc.), they also work as a form of modern-day promotion, and hey this is the climate of the current music industry, we may not like it but this is the game". On the unreleased material, there is absolutely zero income from it, so shut it down! There's no real "loss" from it either ... so that's where the other points come in ... why would they care from a business standpoint if it's simply out there and doesn't affect their profits?

#2 is pretty legit I'd say. They HAVE been doing this for years (even pre-YouTube with eBay, etc.) ... and they also HAVE been releasing archival projects for years too. I mean, they probably pulled tracks that incidentally appeared on Made in California prior to releasing that. I highly doubt the people reporting the infringements are looking track-by-track ("... oh hey, 'Stevie' is gonna be on the Brother Years comp, we better pull that one!")... though they must have some knowledge of the material. My basic point is that they're sweeping for unreleased material because they may be releasing archival projects in the future, which may include some of the tracks they're sweeping.

I agree #1 is probably less of a factor specifically, other than perhaps an all-encompassing "The band doesn't like unapproved material being available" or something. But I'm not sure the group would care about crummy audience recordings of live shows. I'm also not sure that BRI's legal claim to the "performance" (as opposed to the sound recording) is as straightforward either (not that this would stop them from requesting it be deleted, as you noted previously).

Dilluting the "brand" is probably also a factor, both for the group members personally and BRI as a business entity.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: HeyJude on August 16, 2016, 02:11:56 PM


#2 is pretty legit I'd say. They HAVE been doing this for years (even pre-YouTube with eBay, etc.) ... and they also HAVE been releasing archival projects for years too. I mean, they probably pulled tracks that incidentally appeared on Made in California prior to releasing that. I highly doubt the people reporting the infringements are looking track-by-track ("... oh hey, 'Stevie' is gonna be on the Brother Years comp, we better pull that one!")... though they must have some knowledge of the material. My basic point is that they're sweeping for unreleased material because they may be releasing archival projects in the future, which may include some of the tracks they're sweeping.

I agree #1 is probably less of a factor specifically, other than perhaps an all-encompassing "The band doesn't like unapproved material being available" or something. But I'm not sure the group would care about crummy audience recordings of live shows. I'm also not sure that BRI's legal claim to the "performance" (as opposed to the sound recording) is as straightforward either (not that this would stop them from requesting it be deleted, as you noted previously).

Dilluting the "brand" is probably also a factor, both for the group members personally and BRI as a business entity.

As to #2, I just don't think there has usually been much of a causal relationship between pulling stuff via copyright claims and any specific archival release. Both things have occurred, and perhaps there's the possibility of some direct relationships in the case of something like a ton of "Smile" stuff disappearing *right* before a boxed set release.

But "Made in California" being released before, during, and after numerous copyright claims, with material both relating to and not relating to anything on that set, is not much of a causal relationship to me.

Maybe someone at a BRI meeting uses "we want to put our own stuff out" as a motivation to remove stuff from YouTube, but that doesn't create much connection to me, especially so long as they only seem to do scattershot archival releases of mixed quality. The "Copyright Extension" stuff doesn't even count, as we know the main motivation behind those releases.

#1 is true in that the band members have a history of being very difficult especially regarding "Brother Years" outtakes. That sentiment may at least indirectly lead to having someone going around pulling the stuff.

But I still think it's much more a generic "Prince" attitude of "my stuff is out there and I didn't authorize it", with the difference being that the BBs do it much less consistently.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: mikeddonn on August 16, 2016, 02:13:14 PM
My wedding anniversary was a few weeks ago.  So on my wife's Facebook I wanted to post "Lady".  In a previous year I posted, "My Love Lives On".  The reason I chose these songs was to hopefully get people to listen to them and seek out more Beach Boys/Dennis Wilson tracks.  Turn more people on to this fabulous music.  Songs they may not have heard before.

It wouldn't let me play "Lady".  I ended up with a lovely version, a hybrid of Dennis' and Spring's version with a fan video.  It's probably since been taken down!

EDIT:  Here it is!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q2pPpeXt4Xs


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on August 16, 2016, 02:21:56 PM
Tim K had posted a wonderful version of Dennis Wilson's "You and I" that David Marks recorded for an obscure compilation.  I wanted to listen to it again and that's when I realized his channel had been taken down.  It's a sahme, I can't find a version of this recording anywhere else.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: ForHerCryingSoul on August 16, 2016, 04:22:49 PM
Tim K had posted a wonderful version of Dennis Wilson's "You and I" that David Marks recorded for an obscure compilation.  I wanted to listen to it again and that's when I realized his channel had been taken down.  It's a sahme, I can't find a version of this recording anywhere else.
I'd like to add, the demo for Walking on Water is also nowhere to be found.  Only a cover exists on YouTube...  :(


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: The Foot Fetish Man on August 16, 2016, 04:41:15 PM
I highly doubt these recordings are being pulled off of YouTube because of them supposedly being 'substandard' performances and/or recordings or else they would've never released those gawd-awful March 1965 Arie Crown Theater performances from Chicago, Illinois that I'm now listening to on headphones. Most demos have better performances than those!


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: The_Beach on August 16, 2016, 04:56:11 PM
Tim K had posted a wonderful version of Dennis Wilson's "You and I" that David Marks recorded for an obscure compilation.  I wanted to listen to it again and that's when I realized his channel had been taken down.  It's a sahme, I can't find a version of this recording anywhere else.
I'd like to add, the demo for Walking on Water is also nowhere to be found.  Only a cover exists on YouTube...  :(

You guys can message me!


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: halblaineisgood on August 16, 2016, 05:21:58 PM
they must have some knowledge of the material.
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/33718075.jpg)


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: Pretty Funky on August 16, 2016, 05:25:30 PM
Do the Beach Boys still own Brother Records?   Who runs it?


Look at this YouTube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QCZ_bv9aLc

I may be wrong, but I don't think the YouTube user "MorseMoose79" is an authorized Beach Boys/Brother Records distributor.

ehh....That link is now MIA.

BRI strikes again! :lol


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: DonnyL on August 16, 2016, 08:40:56 PM
they must have some knowledge of the material.
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/33718075.jpg)

Apparently, they're watching us ... I'm available for hire if any of you guys need a popcorn break!


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: The_Beach on August 16, 2016, 09:38:28 PM
they must have some knowledge of the material.
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/33718075.jpg)

Apparently, they're watching us ... I'm available for hire if any of you guys need a popcorn break!

Oh yeah they watch this forum like a hawk! Someone made a thread about one of my videos and the very next day it said BRI blocked it! And that video was up for over a half a year at that point! So we just need to keep suggesting on this board how bad we want this material officially released!!!


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: GoofyJeff on August 17, 2016, 06:19:10 AM
So we just need to keep suggesting on this board how bad we want this material officially released!!!

*cough* BeachBoysCentral.com *cough*

C'mon BRI... it's been over a decade since you teased us. What have you got to lose?


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: Ram4 on August 17, 2016, 12:03:17 PM
They should be doing what Robert Fripp did with King Crimson.  Put everything online for download.  Countless shows (multitracked, soundboards, radio broadcasts, audience tapes), Studio sessions and outtakes available.  They still release physical product, and massive box sets, but the majority is available for download.

http://www.dgmlive.com/kc/
It's a little tricky to navigate, but if you move your mouse over the the eight vertical avatars on the left of the page, it will give you an era of the band.  Click on one, and then the Sound tab, and you can see how insane it is.  Just imagine a Beach Boys page like this.  I would think it would be a lot easier for them to release things without physical units being made.  

Here's the most recent upload from the current tour: http://www.dgmlive.com/archive.htm?artist=35&show=2011&member=&entry=




Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: ForHerCryingSoul on August 17, 2016, 04:30:12 PM
My channel received a strike for BRI for posting a different mix of You're Still a Mystery...  THE ONE THAT IS ON MADE IN CALIFORNIA HAS A DIFFERENT VOCAL TRACK AND OVERDUBS.  I'm not saying what I did wasn't wrong, but I'm glad I was able to save my channel before things got worse.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: terrei on August 18, 2016, 12:35:30 PM
I highly doubt these recordings are being pulled off of YouTube because of them supposedly being 'substandard' performances and/or recordings or else they would've never released

The only reason "Carry Me Home" was not released on Made in California was because of the Dennis lyric "don't let me die". Yes, recordings are being kept from release just because some people feel it's "uncomfortable" for Beach Boys music. Aren't you glad that The People in Charge are honoring his legacy by locking up music he worked so hard for us to hear?


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: HeyJude on August 18, 2016, 12:53:43 PM
I highly doubt these recordings are being pulled off of YouTube because of them supposedly being 'substandard' performances and/or recordings or else they would've never released

The only reason "Carry Me Home" was not released on Made in California was because of the Dennis lyric "don't let me die". Yes, recordings are being kept from release just because some people feel it's "uncomfortable" for Beach Boys music. Aren't you glad that The People in Charge are honoring his legacy by locking up music he worked so hard for us to hear?

Not releasing "Carry Me Home" is quite lamentable. But I'm not nearly as concerned with individual tracks being vetoed. The problem is that they haven't moved at all in the direction of doing a substantive archival release program. Tons of live shows, deluxe album reissues with copious amounts of bonus tracks, and/or studio outtake boxed sets themed to key eras.

If someone is weirded out by "Carry Me Home", then fine, move on to the other HUNDREDS of studio and live tracks that, if half-way archival projects like "Made in Calfornia" are indiction, the band are willing to grant release.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: Ram4 on August 18, 2016, 01:10:21 PM
By using the Carry Me Home is too upsetting logic, we're lucky we ever got Til I Die.  Eventually everyone who was close to Dennis or feels the song is too upsetting will be gone.  Then it's just another song to the rest of us.  Yes it's somewhat tragic considering how he ended up, but it's still a worthwhile song.  If we can have Til I Die and the song Manson originally gave to Dennis on 20/20, we can have Carry Me Home.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: mikeddonn on August 19, 2016, 08:41:27 AM
By using the Carry Me Home is too upsetting logic, we're lucky we ever got Til I Die.  Eventually everyone who was close to Dennis or feels the song is too upsetting will be gone.  Then it's just another song to the rest of us.  Yes it's somewhat tragic considering how he ended up, but it's still a worthwhile song.  If we can have Til I Die and the song Manson originally gave to Dennis on 20/20, we can have Carry Me Home.

I don't get why people think it hasn't been released because of the lyric about dying and Dennis dying.  Dennis died in 1983.  The song was at least 10 years old by that point and hadn't been released.  Pure and simple I think it didn't fit the group's image and wasn't released at the time for that reason.  Same as other unreleased songs.  There is no logic to it with the Beach Boys.  If it was because of Dennis dying then why was WIBNTLA released?


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: DonnyL on August 19, 2016, 08:50:52 AM
By using the Carry Me Home is too upsetting logic, we're lucky we ever got Til I Die.  Eventually everyone who was close to Dennis or feels the song is too upsetting will be gone.  Then it's just another song to the rest of us.  Yes it's somewhat tragic considering how he ended up, but it's still a worthwhile song.  If we can have Til I Die and the song Manson originally gave to Dennis on 20/20, we can have Carry Me Home.

I don't get why people think it hasn't been released because of the lyric about dying and Dennis dying.  Dennis died in 1983.  The song was at least 10 years old by that point and hadn't been released.  Pure and simple I think it didn't fit the group's image and wasn't released at the time for that reason.  Same as other unreleased songs.  There is no logic to it with the Beach Boys.  If it was because of Dennis dying then why was WIBNTLA released?

Maybe Dennis himself didn't want it released originally ... or didn't want it on a Beach Boys record.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: mikeddonn on August 19, 2016, 04:52:10 PM
That's pretty much my point.  It wasn't released for reasons probably not pertaining to the 'dying' lyric.  Same as "Hard Times" and "California Slide" etc.  All great songs deserving of release.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: mikeddonn on August 24, 2016, 02:49:50 PM
My wedding anniversary was a few weeks ago.  So on my wife's Facebook I wanted to post "Lady".  In a previous year I posted, "My Love Lives On".  The reason I chose these songs was to hopefully get people to listen to them and seek out more Beach Boys/Dennis Wilson tracks.  Turn more people on to this fabulous music.  Songs they may not have heard before.

It wouldn't let me play "Lady".  I ended up with a lovely version, a hybrid of Dennis' and Spring's version with a fan video.  It's probably since been taken down!

EDIT:  Here it is!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q2pPpeXt4Xs

One of my wife's friends loved the song so much she went on to iTunes and paid for it!  Job done!  Proves the point that YouTube is a great way to promote the band and turn others on to the wonderful music.

The purge continues as more stuff gets blocked since last week.  Officially released stuff as well. Shame.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: The Cool One on August 24, 2016, 03:22:44 PM
Youtube was made as a video search web including videos from tv.

That Video of Don´t Worry Baby was on E-mule before Youtube, I´m talking of about 2003. (Source: I Have a DVD Of Beach Boys made in that year who marked my life)


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: jiggy22 on August 29, 2016, 02:25:34 PM
Looking through youtube now, it looks like "Sweet and Bitter" and Don Goldberg's "Out in the Country" have been purged from the site. Not only that, but another youtube user by the name of "videojpp" has removed all of his Beach Boys remasters. He had some amazing HQ remixes of "Carry Me Home", "My Solution", and a multitude of other rare tracks. Actually, now I'm really going through youtube, and seems as though the vast majority of rare tracks are being removed. "Alone on Christmas Day", "Go and Get That Girl", "Stevie", "Awake", "Looking Down the Coast", "Santa Ana Winds" (Original), "We Gotta Groove", "Hey There Momma", "Hey Little Tomboy" (Original), "Lines", and "Loop De Loop" (Original), all of them are nowhere to be seen on youtube! It really is a shame, I know that these tracks can be found on other sites pretty easily, but the large exposure that the tracks got on a popular website like youtube made it easy for anyone to find rare tracks by the group.


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: The Cool One on August 29, 2016, 02:39:42 PM
I Think that the problem is...


















Murry Wilson is alive and is deleting all beach boys things from youtube


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: The_Beach on August 29, 2016, 02:45:08 PM
Looking through youtube now, it looks like "Sweet and Bitter" and Don Goldberg's "Out in the Country" have been purged from the site. Not only that, but another youtube user by the name of "videojpp" has removed all of his Beach Boys remasters. He had some amazing HQ remixes of "Carry Me Home", "My Solution", and a multitude of other rare tracks. Actually, now I'm really going through youtube, and seems as though the vast majority of rare tracks are being removed. "Alone on Christmas Day", "Go and Get That Girl", "Stevie", "Awake", "Looking Down the Coast", "Santa Ana Winds" (Original), "We Gotta Groove", "Hey There Momma", "Hey Little Tomboy" (Original), "Lines", and "Loop De Loop" (Original), all of them are nowhere to be seen on youtube! It really is a shame, I know that these tracks can be found on other sites pretty easily, but the large exposure that the tracks got on a popular website like youtube made it easy for anyone to find rare tracks by the group.


Crazy! Glad Don Goldbergs songs stayed up for awhile! Those are really floating around boots. Im sure those would still be locked in the vaults with out him! Bri better be coming out with a HUGE rare box set! I would love to get ahold of all these rare songs!


Title: Re: The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 29, 2016, 02:55:40 PM
I Think that the problem is...


















Murry Wilson is alive and is deleting all beach boys things from youtube
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol