• On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
December 11, 2007 2:46 PM PST

Zeppelin fans vs. Warner

by Matt Rosoff
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 12 comments

As a longtime Led Zeppelin fan, I was excited to tune into last night's reunion show in London. Strangely, the show wasn't broadcast anywhere--not even on LedZeppelin.com. Surely somebody could have sold some advertising for such a popular event, and if the promoters objected, they could have donated the proceeds to the Ahmet Ertegun Educational Fund (where funds from ticket sales went).

Screenshot from a YouTube video of last night's Led Zeppelin reunion show. How long before it's taken down?

(Credit: YouTube)

Fortunately, that's what YouTube is for. Unfortunately, as quickly as fans post their videos (taken on cellphones?) on YouTube, Warner Music Group asks for them to be taken down.

This is completely incomprehensible to me. The YouTube videos aren't competing against anything--there's no DVD or recording to satisfy the approximately 24.98 million of us who applied for tickets and didn't get them. And even if there were an official recording, these amateur YouTube clips would serve to whet our appetite for the real thing. And it's not like the band sucked--every review I've read so far has been surprisingly positive, with a few naysayers racing to point out the obvious. (Zeppelin? Playing long, downbeat blues rock songs? No way! I wonder if Johnny Rotten's heard.) So if there's actually going to be a tour, why not build excitement further by giving fans a few glimpses of what might be in store?

Zeppelin fans and curiosity seekers: head over to The Daily Swarm and check out the 2nd video on this page quickly, before Warner asks for it to be taken down. (I'd insert it myself, but if it's in fact a copyright infringement, I'm sure CNET won't approve.) If it's already gone when you get there, here's what you wanted to know: it's a suprisingly half-decent recording of "Stairway to Heaven," Jimmy Page is playing it like the original (he's dropped those annoying extra riffs you can hear on official live Zeppelin recordings like The Song Remains The Same), and Robert Plant did not ask "does anyone remember laughter?" Presumably, he figured out the answer on his own.

Relatedly, I enjoy reading Bob Lefsetz, even when I disagree with him, but today's post just seems like sour grapes. I was eight years old the last time Zeppelin came to town, yet they were just as much a part of my life in high school as they were in yours. So why shouldn't I get a chance to see them? If you don't like it, stay home. Please. That'll be one less guy yelling "down in front" through the whole show.

Matt Rosoff is an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, where he covers Microsoft's consumer products and corporate news. He's written about the technology industry since 1995, and reviewed the first Rio MP3 player for CNET.com in 1998. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mattrosoff.
Recent posts from Digital Noise: Music and Tech
FanSnap--another way to find cheap concert tickets
Will Craigslist drive scalpers out of business?
Create audio messages from song samples
EMI to offer instant concert recordings
Beatles copyright case down a legal rabbit hole
Study: Radio still has broadest reach
Lala co-founder discusses Google deal, iPhone app
Google brings online music to the masses
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (12 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by ajm48786 December 12, 2007 8:28 AM PST
Zeppelin Rules, thanks for posting this, I found a two minute clip of Dazed & Confused, I personally think Page's playing for Dazed was better than his original live version.

Before they take it down:a tease = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XhAqG5f8Ak
Reply to this comment
by MattRosoff December 12, 2007 9:49 AM PST
Killer clip! I wish there was more of it.
Reply to this comment
by ejevo December 12, 2007 10:12 AM PST
Gotta laugh with this comment:

"(I'd insert it myself, but if it's in fact a copyright infringement, I'm sure CNET won't approve.)"

You're going to whine about Warner Bros. requesting these things taken down and you don't know if they're doing it because of copyright infringement? LOL!

Readers, welcome to the new (attempts at) journalism!
Reply to this comment
by MattRosoff December 12, 2007 1:09 PM PST
Your comment makes no sense. Warner is alleging it's copyright infringement. YouTube pulls them down because it doesn't want to be liable. If I posted it on CNET, CNET might be liable as well. But nothing's been decided in court, hence my choice of words.
by ss_Whiplash December 12, 2007 10:57 AM PST
I have never, EVER understood why cameras are banned from live performances. I can't think of one good reason. Though I can think of a million good ones why a band would want every single fan showing everyone else what they missed at the show!
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight December 12, 2007 12:01 PM PST
The Flash takes away from the performance. That's the only valid reason. No Flash, No problem.
by J. Blow December 12, 2007 11:01 AM PST
It isn't the label that didn't want the show broadcast it was the band. They were nervous about playing for the first time and wanted to make sure they could provide the right environment and presentation.

Yes it would have been the biggest web cast ever probably, but when you've already sold over 350M CD's getting their name out in the public isn't the 1st concern.
Reply to this comment
by poopster December 12, 2007 8:57 PM PST
I love Zeppelin. Its about time the "true" purveyor of classic rock as we know it are being recognized. The reality, however, is that the group is very adamant about protecting their intellectual property. its only recently that they've allowed companies to sell their music as digital downloads. Personally I think they are being smart about protecting themselves. The same as Metallica.

I know in the internet culture its not popular and everyone thinks all things should be free. That people should be trusted. if you give it away and ask fo donations people will be honest. Go ask the artist formely known as Prince how he feels about giving away his music for free now. He burned himself a bit. its a business as well as an art.
Reply to this comment
by Reverberator December 13, 2007 10:01 AM PST
Matt -

Might want to check your facts before posting. See Billboard: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i5c17ffd0184ef92e933c376a33b68ac9
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight December 27, 2007 7:22 AM PST
In my book if a copyright holder refuses to meet demand it opens the doors for the rank and file to do so. I would argue that's fair use. Since we the public define fair use (that's right, not copyright holders) it's fair use until a Court Says otherwise. Courts do recognize where fair use comes from. USE. Not the lack of use.
Reply to this comment
by jabailo December 27, 2007 9:51 AM PST
I've been catching up with Lost episodes that are streamed, for free, on Hulu and the ABC streaming site. I watch them full screen on a 22 wide monitor, with ClearWire as my ISP. The image, mostly, is crytal, HD quality. They have a few 30 second "web ads" stuck in between segments. And occasionally there's a little icon in the lower right (sponsored by Intel).

This proves that I should be able to watch any video event, at any time using my computer and the Internet and that it can be paid for by advertising (or subscription). It also means that I don't need "HDTV" or cable and can subsist on a media diet delivered entirely by computer.
Reply to this comment
by Zvo13 December 27, 2007 7:31 PM PST
What are you talking about when you say "the annoying extra riffs." Those are not annoying and they own your face. GO LED ZEPPELIN!!!
Reply to this comment
(12 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

13 games for newer iPhones

So you've got an old iPhone or iPod and want to see what some of the latest games are doing with the newer hardware? We've checked out 11 titles to show you the differences.
• Images: Old vs. new

Intel to pay AMD $1.25B in settlement

Antitrust and intellectual property fights come to an end for now. AMD will drop pending litigation, and Intel will "abide by" a long list of prohibitions.
• AMD: Our claims are 'ratified'

advertisement

About Digital Noise: Music and Tech

Matt Rosoff is an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, where he covers Microsoft's consumer products and corporate news. He's written about the technology industry since 1995 and reviewed the first Rio MP3 player for CNET.com in 1998. He's also a bass guitarist and an avid collector (and digitizer) of LP records. DISCLAIMER: This blog contains the personal opinions of the author and does not necessarily represent the opinions of his employers or of CNET Networks. As an IT industry analyst, the author occasionally agrees to nondisclosure agreements from Microsoft or other companies, and he will not violate the terms of such agreements on this blog.

He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.

Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Digital Noise: Music and Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right