Comments on: Zeppelin fans vs. Warner

As fast as fans post videos from last night's Led Zeppelin reunion show on YouTube, Warner Music demands to take them down. Why?

[ajm48786]

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

[MattRosoff]

Killer clip! I wish there was more of it.

[ejevo]

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!

[MattRosoff]

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.

[ss_Whiplash]

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!

[Renegade Knight]

The Flash takes away from the performance. That's the only valid reason. No Flash, No problem.

[J. Blow]

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.

[poopster]

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.

[Reverberator]

Matt -

Might want to check your facts before posting. See Billboard: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i5c17ffd0184ef92e933c376a33b68ac9

[Renegade Knight]

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.

[jabailo]

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.

[Zvo13]

What are you talking about when you say "the annoying extra riffs." Those are not annoying and they own your face. GO LED ZEPPELIN!!!