Given their experience in signing off on a bad, exploitative deal at the inception of their careers, and the fight they had to get control of their songwriting catalog from David Geffen, I really can't be surprised.
Once (at least!) burned, forever shy. And they're not wrong: what YouTube does is also exploitative. Anybody on YouTube who's building a career on publicising the reprocessing of other people's music in any way, is building on sand. In no way are they any better off than the Eagles were under their original contracts.
Leaving the question, is it better to do react videos on Creedence because the owners aren't issuing copyright strikes, when you know that Creedence was robbed?
Ah yes, “we’ve been burned therefore we’ll be taking the risk of getting you banned from the platform you’re trying to make a following and money on”. That sounds so nice of them.
Once (at least!) burned, forever shy. And they're not wrong: what YouTube does is also exploitative. Anybody on YouTube who's building a career on publicising the reprocessing of other people's music in any way, is building on sand. In no way are they any better off than the Eagles were under their original contracts.
Leaving the question, is it better to do react videos on Creedence because the owners aren't issuing copyright strikes, when you know that Creedence was robbed?