[BlobWeird]

source

"They [Grisman and business partner Craig Miller] say they deserve an unspecified amount of money from the hits — and advertising revenue — that that [sic] Google gets from their clips."

How rotten. Mr. Grisman, how do you get exposure these days? In the classifieds ads under "Musician For Hire?" Do you even own a computer, Dave?

Why not email the uploaders of the youtube clips and ask them to upload them to dawgnet.com? Then you get the revenue, and the fans can enjoy the experience. Did you think of dat one der Dave?

Wow How rotten of you to talk like that. About someone you dont know none the less! Whether it hurts him or helps him its his decision bottom line. Like when bobby took down all the stuff on archive it hurt but its HIS decision. No need to get nasty about it.

oh and Well put August and Strummin!

[mttourpro]

I don't blame DG in the least. If he wrote it and copywrote it, then it's his to decide what to do with and how to do it. I also think that there are precedents to consider and if you don't want to allow for the use of your material to get even more widespread then you have to do something about it now.

I'm sure if there were, say, movies on there for download, that some producers and studios would be up in arms in 2 minutes of knowing that. They'd prolly want whomever uploaded it to be punished as well. Just my 2 cents.

[mutant_dan]

In reality Acoustic Disc (David's record label http://www.acousticdisc.com/ ) is very sophisticated. He offers downloads of all his music in MP3, SHN and FLAC. He has a daily download of his songs that are no longer in circulation. Songs that he can't actually release on CD due to previous record deals.

You must realize that David isn't a rich man. He doesn't make all that much money from his performances. His recording label was created with funds/grants from the Rex Foundation. He has a mortgage to pay, kids to feed, staff to pay (along with benefits). I bet he doesn't have a retirement account. He will be playing until his last days on earth to keep paying the bills.

Granted he has some vintage instruments that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars but he can't take that to the bank to pay the musicians in his band.

David doesn't need YouTube for the exposure. Mr. Navajo, I suggest you expose yourself to a little bit of history associated with David Grisman and his work. Check this out for starters http://tinyurl.com/yv6oux

[confusions_prince]

This is a weird space for intellectual property. I don't like patents, and I think wikis and free software are the future. That said, Dawg owns his music. If he allowed taping at a concert, are the tapes his? No. Is it fair for YouTube et al to exploit user-submitted tapes? No, but they don't get free bandwidth or free servers.

[strumminsix]

This is a weird space for intellectual property. I don't like patents, and I think wikis and free software are the future. That said, Dawg owns his music. If he allowed taping at a concert, are the tapes his? No. Is it fair for YouTube et al to exploit user-submitted tapes? No, but they don't get free bandwidth or free servers.

Without patents what motivates the individual to invent? He waits to copy then. Only a patent protects them. What if you had a $1,000,000 idea that was taken from you?

Wiki is contribution-based website that is taken for gospel by far too many. The future? A bleak one.

He allowed audio taping he like the GD didn't allow soundboards or video but never cracked down cuz nobody was making money nor losing money and it was done person to person. But with YouTube making $$$ they are stealing. Similar to me walking into McDonalds and taking all their burgers and selling them outside.

[navajo]

There are so many better ways to go about doing what he's doing. Why doesn't he want the videos online? Because he's not profiting from them, or because he just simply doesn't want them online? If it's the latter, I sympathize. If it's the former, I think it's weak as hell. Although Dave might not be getting paid for each video watched on Youtube, it's advertising, and it can easily be seen as a trade off. Also, unless I hear talks about Dave putting the ex-Youtube videos on his own site so people can watch the videos and Dave and Co. can still profit from them-- and it's not just about the fact that he doesn't want them online period, which it isn't, as I quoted in my last post-- I strongly disapprove of Dave's decision.

He might not even have much say, or opinion, on the matter-- it could be people above him pulling strings (like it seemed was happening with GD vs. archive.org). Listening to Weir talk about archive.org just makes me shutter, and we all know Phil wasn't even involved in the archive.org take-down process.

[amyjared]

He allowed audio taping he like the GD didn't allow soundboards or video but never cracked down cuz nobody was making money nor losing money and it was done person to person. But with YouTube making $$$ they are stealing. Similar to me walking into McDonalds and taking all their burgers and selling them outside

Strummin, let me start off by saying that I have the utmost respect for your opinions and usually you and I are close in our thinking, but we differ greatly on this issue.

It is in no way similar to you going into mcdonalds and taking things and reselling them. Why? Because when you steal from Mcd's (which I highly recommend, btw ), they don't have their product anymore. When someone posts on youtube, or downloads music, the owners still have their product. BIG difference, imho.

Now back on topic. I don't think people should make money off of others, but that is exactly what is encouraged in the USA. Think of why Garcia died. He just wanted to play music and at the end, he wanted to stop but too many people were dependent upon him for him to do that. I don't mean the rest of the band, I mean the hundreds and possibly thousands who made money from him. What about people who run used cd stores? They are in no way the ones making the music, but they are making money from it? This is exactly what you speak against. I feel like Garcia did in that once the music is played live and done, then people should be able to do what they want with it. Should people sell Dead bootlegs? Hell no. Do they? Sure. Is it right? No. Can we stop it? Probably not.

Now, should DG stop youtube? It's up to him, but personally I think it's a big mistake for much of the same reasons that I've already read. How does a 4 minute clip of him doing a song hurt him? I only see it as a bonus. However, should there be costraints placed upon it? I don't think so. It's like regulating the internet. I'd rather people regulate each other. As soon as restrictions are placed, especially by the gov't, it screws things up. Just my opinion. Peace.

[ronster]

I doubt that Google will make any more or less money beause Grissman videos are on Youtube. If Grissman or the venue allowed taping or videos and someone uploaded it, then it should be allowed. It's not like it is a professionally made video that Grissman is selling elsewhere. If someone made a video in Baltimore that I happened to be in and I uploaded it to Youtube, would I have the right to make them pull it from Youtube? Is the video their property because they shot it or mine because I was in it.
Should I be forced to pay multiple times for someones intellectual property? I bought the Allman Brothers Band "Live at Filmore East" album on 8track, LP, and CD. It appears I was charged 3 times for the same product. Where do I get my rebate?

[strumminsix]

There are so many better ways to go about doing what he's doing. Why doesn't he want the videos online? Because he's not profiting from them, or because he just simply doesn't want them online? If it's the latter, I sympathize. If it's the former, I think it's weak as hell.

One of the great quotes I've heard from a local musician was something like, "I'm not worried about getting paid but if there is money being made I want my fair share." This was in regards to playing gigs for free or very low pay.

Essentially the same thing. Why should Google profit just by hosting and bandwidth?

[strumminsix]

He allowed audio taping he like the GD didn't allow soundboards or video but never cracked down cuz nobody was making money nor losing money and it was done person to person. But with YouTube making $$$ they are stealing. Similar to me walking into McDonalds and taking all their burgers and selling them outside

Strummin, let me start off by saying that I have the utmost respect for your opinions and usually you and I are close in our thinking, but we differ greatly on this issue.

It is in no way similar to you going into mcdonalds and taking things and reselling them. Why? Because when you steal from Mcd's (which I highly recommend, btw ), they don't have their product anymore. When someone posts on youtube, or downloads music, the owners still have their product. BIG difference, imho.

Respect back at ya! Yes,you called me out fairly and the difference you pointed out is key. It's also the difference between physical property and intellectual property. The difference is huge.

My point still stands why should google make bank off of work they simple host?

[amyjared]

My point still stands why should google make bank off of work they simple host?

Choose one:

A) Because they thought of it first
B) Because they, like used cd shops, are hosting it
C) Because if they don't, they won't host it and we will be the worse for it, not getting to see the videos
D) They shouldn't!!

[strumminsix]

My point still stands why should google make bank off of work they simple host?

Choose one:

A) Because they thought of it first
B) Because they, like used cd shops, are hosting it
C) Because if they don't, they won't host it and we will be the worse for it, not getting to see the videos
D) They shouldn't!!

I'll choose D

[ronster]

I vote C

Some people appear to equate capitalism to big business to evil but without a capitilitic society there would be no Grateful Dead. In a purely socialistic society muscians would be selected from an early age and trained to play primarly classical music. The musical revolution of the 60's occured because capitalistic people like Bill Graham and companies like Warner Brothers had the vision that they could make a buck backing people like Jerry Garcia who wanted to change the future of music. Just because Google makes money and bought out Youtube does not make what is shown any more or less evil than if they did not make money. The only differnce is that if they don't make money then they do not stay in business.

[confusions_prince]

Free information (creative commons, free software, wiki, indie news and records) is the future, and it's not a bleak future at all. It's our only hope for democracy in the face of media consolidation. Wikipedia articles that cite their sources can be taken pretty seriously, and wikis in general are a fine starting point for casual NPOV research. Free software, a novel idea: your computer should do what you want it to do. Big companies are making Linux happen now, but that is killing the community aspect of it. Sort of like Bill Graham making the magic happen but taking away from the local feel. Patents, especially design patents, serve to obstruct progress. If you invent a process you want to protect, I am OK with that. If you want to prevent someone from duplicating an idea is dirty. The current model is to put economics at the focus instead of people. Free information is kind, and the Dead have their roots there (or is it that free info has its roots in the hippies or both?).

Recordings are mostly irrelevant. We talk about quality, but no matter how good that recording gets, you're not at the show. Those transcendant moments are what count... (and you have to pay for those usually)

[strumminsix]

Seriously, a vote for C is a vote for big corporations and overgrown gov't. The outcome of C is that a big business squashes the intellectual property of an individual.

Edited to removed overly political chat. Sorry to all. This has been on my mind alot lately and this isn't the place for it.