The Beach Boys and Youtube Copyright Infringement

[Bicyclerider]

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?

[DonnyL]

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.

[DonnyL]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.

[DonnyL]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.

[DonnyL]

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.

[HeyJude]

#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.

[mikeddonn]

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

[Rocky Raccoon]

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.

[ForHerCryingSoul]

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... 

[The Foot Fetish Man]

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!

[The_Beach]

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!

[halblaineisgood]

they must have some knowledge of the material.

[Pretty Funky]

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!

[DonnyL]

they must have some knowledge of the material.

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

[The_Beach]

they must have some knowledge of the material.

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!!!

[GoofyJeff]

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?

[Ram4]

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=

[ForHerCryingSoul]

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.

[terrei]

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?

[HeyJude]

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.

[Ram4]

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.

[mikeddonn]

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?