Neil Young News: CSNY 1973 Winterland Reunion : "Human Highway "

Sunday, November 09, 2008

CSNY 1973 Winterland Reunion : "Human Highway "

UPDATE: Video no longer available.

CSNY - Human Highway (at Winterland Reunion 1973)

It was a Stephen Stills and Manassas concert, until a few very special guests showed up... CSNY hadn't played together for about 2 years when this happened. Neil Young was on the Tonight's the Night tour with the Santa Monica Flyers, Stills with Manassas and Crosby & Nash were on the road as well when this happened. What a experience it must've been for the audience! You can hear they haven't been playing together in a while as the playing is as tight as were used to, but still, this is a very important night in the history of music... and it happened on October 4 1973.

Thanks hmj1985, Julie "wernothelpless", Chris "CW Cannoneer", Bill G. and everyone else!

More on Winterland Stories.

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>: <$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

20 Comments:

At 11/09/2008 03:06:00 PM, Anonymous said...: i really wish they would have finished that csny human highway album in 76. that would have been one hell of an album!
At 11/09/2008 09:30:00 PM, Anonymous said...: The clip looks like a stolen/bootlegged clip with a Timecode Window burn in it.

Most things that you see on the Web like this are unauthorized by the artists involved.
At 11/09/2008 11:22:00 PM, Anonymous said...: Youtube already took it down.
At 11/09/2008 11:38:00 PM, Veg said...: Probably because Joe Legit, Mr Anonymous up there, reported it to YouTube for use violation like some stool pigeon.

It's over 35 years old, never released on anything official, and in no way "steals" anything from the artists involved.

Don't be such a stiff.
At 11/10/2008 01:02:00 AM, Anonymous said...: When some of the rare Neil stuff was out on youtube it has actually helped fire up my love of Neil's music and made me go out and buy more of his records. So when youtube takes down stuff they are just making artists less interesting. Youtube used to be good, but now it sucks.
At 11/10/2008 04:03:00 AM, thom said...: i´m with veg.

cheers, thomas
At 11/10/2008 07:27:00 AM, Anonymous said...: dont worry, it's gonna be on Archives Vol. 2. Release date : 2021
At 11/10/2008 12:01:00 PM, Anonymous said...: YouTube's guidelines about copyright are pretty well laid out and needed in order for them to stay in business. Even with these rules much of the content on YouTube skirts the rules.
While we all dig really cool rare clips, keep in mind that we have no rights or ownership of these materials.

I would respond to Veg by saying that it doesn't matter if the material is old or never released....the point is ownership, who controls the rights to distribute it and who owns the publishing for the music. It is a pretty safe bet that whoever posted these Winterland clips doesn't fit any of the above criteria.

To feel a sense of entitlement to something that is no yours seems kinda screwed up to me.

Below are a few of YouTube's Guidelines. Perhaps a sensible discussion can happen here after everyone reads them.

"Respect copyright. Only upload videos that you made or that you are authorized to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to.."

"The most common reason we take down videos for copyright infringement is that they are direct copies of copyrighted content and the owners of the copyrighted content have alerted us that their content is being used without their permission. Once we become aware of an unauthorized use, we will remove the video promptly. That is the law."

"Some examples of copyrighted content are:
Music videos, such as the ones you might find on music video channels
Videos of live concerts, even if you captured the video yourself
Even if you took the video yourself, the performer controls the right to use his/her image in a video, the songwriter owns the rights to the song being performed, and sometimes the venue prohibits filming without permission, so this video is likely to infringe somebody else's rights.
Slide shows that include photos or images owned by somebody else."
At 11/10/2008 01:00:00 PM, Veg said...: I have over 35 bootlegged Neil Young shows, I suppose those really get your goat too, even though Neil himself has stated on multiple occasions that he doesn't really give two shits about it. I could care less whether or not he legally "owns" the material played at those concerts. Even if he didn't approve of them, I'd still have them.

As for YouTube videos, those are even easier to argue against; who is losing money because of this? No one. The quality of the video on YouTube is nowhere near fit for redistribution, and anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty dim.

I can see why YouTube's legal stance is what it is, but what I cannot see is why anyone in the end user base should support their policies so astutely.

As the user, it's not YOUR concern who owns the clip. It is not YOUR concern whether or not it was legitimately obtained. And most of all, it is not YOUR responsibility to go sounding the alarm like you're the copyright police. If the party who is the owner requests it be taken down, fine, whatever, YouTube doesn't want to get sued, I don't have a problem with THAT. I have a problem with people who feel like there's anything beyond avoiding a lawsuit behind these policies.

Why do you think DailyMotion never takes down any of their copyrighted material? They're outside the jurisdiction of US copyright law. There's no "morality" to any of this, it's not "wrong", it just POTENTIALLY violates the United States' utterly ridiculous copyright laws.

If you want to pretend that this is a matter of right and wrong, I guess that's your choice, but I think the rest of us have just learned that the only thing that matters on this legal issue is what's written between the lines: $GREED$.

I have no problem with someone protecting their legitimately owned material in a REASONABLE way, and when they can prove that they are LOSING ownership of the material because of it (IE, someone's selling a pirated DVD or CD on the corner or on eBay). But if no one's making, taking, or losing money, guess what, no one has ever been prosecuted for that kind of "illegal" digital distribution, because there's no REASONABLE argument the owner can make to suggest the copyright violator is intending to steal from them.

Am I paying to watch that video? No. Was that guy paid to upload it? No. Is any money changing hands anywhere because of it? No. It may technically violate copyright law, but the worst you could ever get for it would be a cease and desist order, because no judge in their right mind would see any "harm" done in such a case.

I don't support sellers of bootlegs, I don't support people who sell illegal copies of copyrighted work. But I also don't support the unreasonable standards of copyright law in the United States.
At 11/10/2008 08:58:00 PM, Anonymous said...: In reply to Veg-

For the sake of calarity in this conversation, let's call me Anon4 Artists Rights.

1- Yes I was the earlier commenter who fingered this film clip as most likely a stolen/ bootlegged material and yes I was also the person who posted the excerpts from YouTube guidelines.

No one individual can contact YouTube and have a clip removed. There is a very involved written and legal process to do so. Only a copyright holder or their authorized agent can point out violations to YouTube. There could not have been a "stool pigeon". It was someone with the offical right to do so...most likely a lawyer, a record or publishing company...perhaps Wolfgang's Vault who vigorously monitors use and mis-use of BGP archival materials.
I suggest that you read up on such matters before resorting to name calling. By the way, terms such as "stool pigeon", "fink", and "whistleblower" are generally used by those outside the law,not byu those who prescribe to it.

2- Thank you for serving as such a prime example of the type of individual that I described in my earlier comment post. I hope that other readers here can see your lack of recognition and respect for the rights of artists thru your comments.

Apart from mentioning that "I could care less whether or not he legally "owns" the material played at those concerts", you come up with a bunch of justifications to support use and ownership of that which is not yours.
The subject we are discussing here is NOT about greed, nor money, nor whether something is commercially available or not.....it is about the rights of artists and the manner inwhich they wish to distribute and display there art.

Let's use me as an example here to illustrate a point. As a musician and a photographer I personally would like to be the decision maker over what happens with my work. It is not about how much I get for a photograph or whether I get money every time my song is heard or distributed. This is about having a say over how my work is presented. I certainly wouldn't want people distributing and publishing a rough mix of a song or a grainy video that was taken away and copied without me knowing. I'd like my art seen and heard in the form of my choosing and on my terms. Is that too much to ask?

The same goes here for the type of YouTube video we are discussing here. This was clearly a "for internal use only" type of video dub with timecode on it. If you have any passing knowledge of music and film production, it would be clear that something of this quality was never meant to be viewed or distributed to the public.

3- I honor that you said-"I have no problem with someone protecting their legitimately owned material in a REASONABLE way", but you continue thru your remarks to tie 'harm' to loss of revenue and seem to justify that if no one is making a profit all is cool.
You suggest that "no one has ever been prosecuted for that kind of "illegal" digital distribution". You should do your homework before making such a wide brush stroke of a statement, for you are wrong.

In summary, Veg, you claim to not support bootlegs yet most of what you write is in defense of having the right to access and use that which is not yours..and that which is distributed without permission of the owner.

I'll leave the readers here with how you opened your string of comments since it says a lot about your stance:
"I could care less whether or not he legally "owns" the material played at those concerts. Even if he didn't approve of them, I'd still have them."
At 11/10/2008 09:53:00 PM, Anonymous said...: Unfortunatley the suits in Hollywood never learned the most important lesson ever taught to the music industry ... give and you shall get .. the Grateful Dead early on embraced sharing their bootlegs openly and they minted cash beyond their wildest dreams ... the record labels are for some reason so tight with copyrights ... they have every right legally, so I'm not questioning their ownership of the art, but they are in the business of making money and they should open their eyes and realize its in THEIR interest to share the wealth (if I may use this Obama-ism) .. in the case of the record labels it will come back in spades
At 11/10/2008 10:42:00 PM, Anonymous said...: The thing about the Dead was that usually they were out of tune and off key....quality took a backseat.

Most of what I hear outside of their official releases is barely listenable, though I guess if you are high enough it doesn't matter.
At 11/11/2008 02:39:00 AM, Anonymous said...: Veg is dead right. Neil has encouraged copying of his official material before (the Eldorado EP), as well as allowing taping of live shows (HORDE tour in '97 for one) at different times. This Winterland '73 video has been circulating amongst collectors for many years now, along with miles of other unofficial stuff. We know better than Neil what he should have released, so back off Mr Anonymous... :-)
At 11/11/2008 02:04:00 PM, Anonymous said...: I challenge you to show proof positve that Neil Young has ever encouraged or approved of tapings of his shows. It just isn't the case.
The HORDE Festival is a whole different thing involving other bands with taping policies and a festival arrangement.

I agree with you that the Winterland bootlegged film clips have been in circulation for years, but how does supporting it's illegal distribution fit with defending the rights of artists to control their material and how it is used?

your pal,
Anon4 Artists Rights
At 11/11/2008 02:41:00 PM, Veg said...: Am I going to have to post another reply here? No one has ever been prosecuted successfully for the kind of digital distribution of artistic material that has never been sold. Unless the accusing party can prove a physical object was STOLEN from them and that the unreleased copyrighted material is reasonable evidence to search for that object, you aren't going to get far in a courtroom.

Copyright law in the United States is pretty ridiculous, and the kind of infringement you're referring to falls under the NET (No Electronic Theft) act, which has only ever successfully been enforced a couple dozen times. And all of those incidents were either related to mass software piracy, online purchasing fraud, or in a few cases, sharing released music in the form of MP3 files (the latter offense has not been tried in 5 years because its legitimacy is in question).

And I can see perfectly well why you wouldn't want brand new material leaking without your consent. But there's a difference between something which you are planning to publicly release in the near future and something you've been sitting on for 35 years and obviously have no intention to market.

I'm perfectly content to bootleg Neil's unreleased live, or even studio work from the 60's/70's/80's. Why? Because after 40, 30, or even 20 years, it's no longer REASONABLE to expect that material to be protected intellectual property if you yourself cannot control its distribution. And why is that? If the authorities cannot logistically control and prevent the circulation of that material in an effective way, you obviously no longer have control over it.

I can understand why Metallica went after the guy who pirated and distributed their new album a month before it came out. That's different. Metallica lost notable sales for it, and the intent of that guy could obviously be described as MALICIOUS.

Is there any MALICE against the artist involved here? No. Is there any intent to steal or take from the artist? No. Is this hurting the artist publicly? No.

Your only (read: ONLY) argument is the same standard "it's theirs so they should be able to do whatever they want with it and no one else should have any say".

So I guess you're against all covers of songs, too? Because that takes your artistic material and distorts it in a way you didn't authorize, most certainly. Weird Al must be on your bad list.

And if you say that's "art in response to art", so are music videos. Someone is taking your art and laying their art over it. So an unauthorized music video is in essence the same thing as someone covering your song.

Oh, and ripping CD's, or digital images? Those are unauthorized distortions of your work too. Taking the WAV audio from a CD and converting it to MP3 definitely distorts your work. And taking a picture of your art obviously distorts numerous visual aspects of it.

We live in an age of massive information access, the world is not the same place it was even 15 years ago. Many artists have already learned how to cope (put up their own YouTube videos, MySpace music), and many actually LIKE to see bootlegged performances (Pearl Jam anyone?). Again, I could care less whether or not they LIKE these things happening, it's not about permission; it's about realizing that art, if people like it, is going to get distributed in ways you may or may not like no matter what you do. So you better learn how to gain from those channels of distribution, not try to destroy them.

There is no malice and no greed in sharing the work of an artist you enjoy, whether what you're sharing is copyrighted or not.

The old notions of artistic ownership are being cast off by many newer artists, who choose to embrace the idea that their work is shared freely.

I believe that, if you can afford it, you should always purchase an artist's work if that is an option. Like I said, I purchase all the new albums of my favorite artists, but if their back catalog extends more than 10 years, I don't have the money to blow to get that stuff, and I don't think they should expect people to.

And if there's one thing to take from the information age's policy of sharing, it's that people who share this work typically like to preserve its integrity as much as possible so that those they are sharing with get the same experience, and those who get that shared work tend to expect a certain level of quality and maintenance of work's original integrity.

All of my pirated music is in 240 or 320Kbs (sonic quality nearly unnoticeable in difference from the CD), all my bootlegged shows are in FLAC, and I don't sell them.

To expect total control of your work in this day and age is no longer reasonable.

I don't have anything else to say on this subject.
At 11/11/2008 04:32:00 PM, Anonymous said...: What the hell is going on here? You should ban comments from Dudley DoRights in the future. This law abiding asshole, that's trying to prevent the fans from hearing the music and performances that the record company is too stupid to have made available years ago, must not be getting any sex these days and he want to take it out on Neil Young fans. Go visit a Pearl Jam or Hootie blog site and leave us alone.
At 11/12/2008 12:02:00 PM, Willage said...: I thought that I might be able to get a real intellectual discussion going here, but I can see that you have all taken the Kool-Aid that aids you in justifying your actions and striking out against those defend what is rightfully not your to have.

Yes, I am a Dudley Do-Right and a Canadian...proud to be all of those things.

Veg- You continue to confuse the issue of ownership and rights of an artist with financial gain and profit motive. You have gone so far down that road in your statements that you can't get back to hear my point...that's too bad for you seem to be able to string a group of words together into sentences.

More disturbing is that now you tell us:
"All of my pirated music is in 240 or 320Kbs (sonic quality nearly unnoticeable in difference from the CD".
I can understand us disagreeing on legal rights matters, but REALLY.....that is sad...especially for a Neil Young fan.
I suggest that you go out and buy a Neil Young release on CD, DVD, vinyl and iTunes and try to LISTEN.
The difference is very clear and not only do MP3 and AAC files suck...so do CDs. 16 bit/ 44kHz audio is a joke and the public has had the wool pulled over their eyes for over 20 years now.
Vinyl is the best of the bunch, followed by the 24/96 DVDs. If you ever listened to the DVD-A format you will have had a glimpse into what Blu-ray must hold for us music lovers.

Then again, you might not actual PURCHASE Neil Young's music.
At 11/12/2008 01:06:00 PM, Anonymous said...: Just read this over at the RustList:

4waysite.com has recently been contacted by CSN's legal counsel,
Gregory S. Gabriel, from the firm of Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump & Aldsert, LLP, in regard to the "News & Rumors" section and the "MP3"
section of this CSNY website.

Until the legal issues addressed in CSN's counsel's correspondence to 4waysite.com have been resolved, this site is inaccessible until
further notice.
At 11/16/2008 04:55:00 PM, Grant said...: Regarding 4waysite not being available until further notice, this is very interesting considering that Graham Nash himself has stated that he approves of the site and thinks it's one of the best CSNY resources on the web.

From what I gather about the guy that runs 4waysite, he is a true fan who most certainly respects CSNY, so I would think that he would have no problem complying with any reasonable requests regarding content over there.

So, I wonder who's idea it was to sick the lawyers on him?
At 11/25/2008 01:54:00 PM, sactogordy said...: i saw this show. it had been on bay area radio that the reunion might take place. I think Sal Valentino opened. The place was 1/2 empty. SStills never was a draw in those days on his own. Chris Hillman said as they were heading to intermission that "You guys are in for something special" First Stills did a few solo songs then C and N and then Neil. Neil also came out during the electric "Carry On". Stills also played the next night but only C and N showed up. The place was packed that night. A very special time and place for music