Eagle Don "No Contest" Henley Wants Copyright Law Changed

Pounder

DFO Star
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
12,043
Reaction score
505
Location
Norman, OK
Henley's speaking on behalf of many in the music business, I imagine he could be considered a spokesperson, due to his high profile position as one of the founding members of the Eagles. I suppose the powers that be didn't perform a background check on him for this role, much to the dismay of some?
 

dsop

Very well Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
708
Reaction score
574
Location
Los Angeles, CA
That's just one aspect of the problem. The biggest problem is that songs are being used illegally, and then it is up to the artist, or their representative, to police things and send "take down requests". No one should be permitted to use ANYONE ELSE'S MUSIC without first obtaining permission and/or a license. When someone does do that, there should be legal recourse against the perpetrator. Right now, sites like Google and Facebook are hiding behind (abusing?) a law that says that they are not responsible for what people post on their sites. Really? They seem to be able to prevent pornography from being posted. Fact is they could EASILY prevent illegal activity, but they are making so much money from it all that they WON'T unless FORCED to do so.




 
Last edited:

Polska

DFO Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
573
Location
Buffalo NY
Henley's speaking on behalf of many in the music business, I imagine he could be considered a spokesperson, due to his high profile position as one of the founding members of the Eagles. I suppose the powers that be didn't perform a background check on him for this role, much to the dismay of some?
Haha, cause ANY background check on most "popular" musicians would be problematic! :)
 

NobleCooleyNut

Very well Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
531
Reaction score
614
Musicians are notorious for being taken advantage of financially by business people . The fact that someone like Don Henley is speaking up is not about greed for himself . He has the clout and name to make waves and potentially start the process for musicians to be fairly compensated by these streaming services .
 

Houndog

DFO Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
1,345
Location
Oklahoma City
I don’t anything about the 16 year old incident , but I do know a few freinds that have been lied to by young girls about their true age .
So I will withhold any judgment there .
 

Vistalite Black

Ludwigs in the Basement
Joined
Feb 17, 2015
Messages
3,599
Reaction score
1,400
Location
North Carolina
I don’t anything about the 16 year old incident , but I do know a few freinds that have been lied to by young girls about their true age .
So I will withhold any judgment there .
Interesting, Houndog, I didn't consider that 34-year-old Don Henley may have somehow been outwitted and ensnared by a high school sophomore.

When you put it that way, it makes me wonder why he didn't plead not guilty.

BTW, it's very possible your friends who have been "lied to" are creeps.
 

SKINZ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
291
Reaction score
152
Location
EAST ATL
U can THANK streaming services for not paying Artist Also Apple computers and pc invention for downloading and looting like whats currently going on in the country ... just burn it


:cool:
 

NewBeat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2018
Messages
115
Reaction score
73
The current set up is mystifying. The screeching about Napster was unending (I guess because no one was making any money, not even Napster). Now you can stream just about anything that was ever recorded off of Google's YouTube and no one (except, apparently, DH) says anything about it.
 

Pounder

DFO Star
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
12,043
Reaction score
505
Location
Norman, OK
As far as the topic of downloading, this is largely an issue with the ubiquitous nature of digital audio. If you have sound files that can be recorded or copied then you'll have people out there copying them. Not sure what the solution is, I imagine some type of security code could be attached to a given type of file, although that would require a key on the other end. When a person plays a sound file they're essentially playing a copy of it. Even if it was purchased.

It's understandable Henley would moan, seeing his royalties dissipate while as many people as ever are listening to Eagles music. There has to be some people making money on this, otherwise you would see record stores closing and new musical acts closing shop. It is even more of an issue while people are trying to stay away from crowds, making it difficult for live performers to work. The same blamed computer technology is becoming the solution with online live performances. I expect things to continue to shake up before anything stabilizes to the satisfaction of performing musicians and artists. Technically savvy individuals will probably do better than those who wanna stay in the dark ages.

Overall as a musician who records music I think the scenario is much improved for individuals. I've felt for a long time that people who value their own creativity over pop stars are being given ample opportunity to enter a more level playing field.

As much as anyone wants to admit, the way things were will never be again. Plus if you think about it the outdated laws were largely benefitting the large distribution chains and music production companies, so things are if anything, unchanged in some ways.
 

el_37

Very well Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
164
Location
NYC
I find the endless arguments about streaming services slightly baffling.

What they are doing isn’t new.

Read any treatise on the record industry from its inception- you didn’t get paid in the 1890’s, 1900’s, 1910’s, 1920’s, 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s or 1980’s or 1990’s either.

The big names eventually got paid what they were owed because they could afford the high powered (and priced) representation.

Pick up a copy of “Hit Men” or Tommy James’s memoir if you need a history of music business practices.

20 years ago the average major label royalty rate was about $1.40 per album. This was when newly released CD’s on a major were selling for $16-$18.

Everyone was making money on that album except the band. Most made less than a $1.40- a few of the heavies made more.

Indie labels- forget it. You had a few honest outfits, but they were the exceptions. Most of them never paid anywhere near what was really owed.

Just like now, bands lived on touring and selling merchandise.

I’m not defending the streaming services or the music industry in general- but lets not pretend the industry was any different in the physical medium era. Performers were always treated unfairly.

Also back then just as much as now- your management team was usually ripping you off just as much if not more than your record label was.
 
Last edited:

ThomFloor

Very well Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2017
Messages
727
Reaction score
417
Just like now, bands lived on touring and selling merchandise.

I’m not defending the streaming services or the music industry in general- but lets not pretend the industry was any different in the physical medium era. Performers were always treated unfairly.
Well ..... Holland Dozier Holland, Carole King, Steely Dan,....not touring noTshirts ....still made a living.
Just because performers have always been treated unfairly doesn't mean complacence is a norm and there cannot be change.
 

el_37

Very well Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
164
Location
NYC
Well ..... Holland Dozier Holland, Carole King, Steely Dan,....not touring noTshirts ....still made a living.
Just because performers have always been treated unfairly doesn't mean complacence is a norm and there cannot be change.
i’m not arguing that change is bad.

The point I’m trying to make is things weren’t better in the old days and a lot of people seemed to think in 1975 the music industry was fair. It wasn’t.

Of the examples you gave- the first was a songwriting/production team, the second was a songwriter for the first ten years of her career- and certainly toured during her heyday of the 70’s and 80’s and the last was a notable exception. But even they eventually caved and started touring-albeit long after their heyday.

They also probably had a net worrh far less than any of their contemporaries that were touring arenas.

Performers today have more control over their product then they ever did. Think about the ordeal it was from 1948-2000 getting a record or cd pressed. Then try actually letting people know you even had an album out. Then try getting a distributer to pick it up. If you could manage that- try actually getting paid..... You NEEDED a label then.

Now you can easily sell direct off of Bandcamp or your own website. Promote your band easily on social media. Easily get your music on streaming services or iTunes or Amazon.

Stuff you could only dream about 20+ years ago. Recording an album also costs a fraction of what it did years ago. Old school studios are closing en masse due to the advancing of recording technology and low demand for their services.

The way artists make money has changed as well. Under the old model you sold lots of records which allowed you to sell lots of tickets when you went on tour and you tried to get lots of radio play.

Now the goal is get your music licensed to advertising/movie/video game/etc which allows you to sell lots of tickets at insanity prices when you go on tour and now you try to get 5,000,000 youtube hits on your latest video.

With a few exceptions over the entire history of recorded music- very few artists ever made a living off of just selling records- and the ones that did sold millions and millions of albums and also owned their publishing.

Touring was what one needed to do. Look at the amount of live performance even classical musicians had to do in order to stay viable.
 

Rock Salad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2018
Messages
443
Reaction score
265
Location
Tulsa, Ok. USA
We here at dfo also qualify as unfair use don't we? When we post music or interviews that we did not ourselves produce and own.

I wonder if any money is being made anywhere except by the giants' CEOs and stock speculators. It's all credit and future expansion isn't it?

603CDE46-B23F-4E0B-BFC0-0E59A01D0D05.jpeg
 

ThomFloor

Very well Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2017
Messages
727
Reaction score
417
i’m not arguing that change is bad.

The point I’m trying to make is things weren’t better in the old days and a lot of people seemed to think in 1975 the music industry was fair. It wasn’t.
Yes I actually agree with all that you said. Mine was a devils advocate counterpoint.
I think artists should get more of their share, but on the other hand, I am glad to see that all the more now they have to get out and perform to make the real bread. Studio music is great, but live music is even better.
 

dsop

Very well Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
708
Reaction score
574
Location
Los Angeles, CA
I’m not defending the streaming services or the music industry in general- but lets not pretend the industry was any different in the physical medium era. Performers were always treated unfairly.
Read this...

Many in the digital music industry rightfully condemn the past exploitation of artists by record labels. But at the same time they seem to be doing the same thing. Trying to bully artists into giving up their rights so that companies like YouTube can make money is the same thing.

With exploitative record contracts The Old Boss tried to take your songs a dozen at a time and pay you pennies. The New Boss wants to take ALL of your songs, past present and future and pay you nothing.

Also, you forgot to mention how musicians in general have been affected. When money was generated from sales of recordings, there was money to be used for recording.
This meant the musicians that played on the sessions got paid. The only real money for musicians now comes from vanity projects paid for by wealthy individuals living out their childhood dreams.

Whether artists made any real money in the past depended on their contracts. I don't think anyone put a gun to their head to sign anything.

And if you think that touring is such a money maker, you haven't done the math there either.
 

Pounder

DFO Star
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
12,043
Reaction score
505
Location
Norman, OK
Most who signed away publishing did so because of ignorance. Indie labels did help some artists. As an example back in the 90s when I saw Offspring they basically said on stage that their label dropped them, they self-produced their next CD which was a hit, and they were glad it happened because they were then millionaires because of it. I'm sure they're outliers but it is an instance of that happening.
 

kallen49

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
234
Reaction score
129
Location
Ontario Canada
My enmity for Don "No Contest" Henley is eclipsed only to a slight degree by how much Shilohjim hates Dawes' father, but in the spirit of public service I thought I'd share his thoughts on preserving his frighteningly large wealth. I hear his testimony in Congress landed with the dull thud that's his signature.

From the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Eagles songwriter Don Henley urged Congress on Tuesday to “Take It to the Limit” to protect artists against online pirating, wading into a copyright fight pitting Hollywood and the recording industry against big tech platforms like Google’s YouTube.
The blockbuster hitmaker of the 1970s testified online from his home before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee weighing possible changes to a 1998 copyright law. The law allows holders of copyrighted material to formally ask parties they believe have taken their content without permission to remove it. The parties can dispute the claim. If they comply promptly with the request, there are no legal consequences. Otherwise, they may be subject to criminal penalties.
Henley said the law is weak and needs to be changed to make it more effective in stopping online piracy.
The so-called “notice and takedown” system under the copyright law is used by the movie and recording industries, entertainment software makers and book authors to pursue tech platforms, universities and other facilitators of file-sharing.
Henley called the copyright law “a relic of a MySpace era in a TikTok world.” With hundreds of millions of takedown notices sent, for every link taken down, “a dozen more pop up in its place,” he said. The system “still allows Big Tech to rake in revenue” after repeated copyright infringements, Henley said.
The copyright battle is being spotlighted in Congress at a time when U.S. tech giants are in an escalating feud with President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers, who accuse platforms such as Twitter, Google and Facebook of suppressing conservative viewpoints. The dispute boiled over last week when Twitter attached warnings to some of Trump’s tweets, on mail-in voting and the use of force against people protesting the police killing of George Floyd. Trump, who is Twitter’s most prominent user, responded by issuing an executive order intended to chip away at the tech platforms’ legal shield for speech content they carry.
In the debate over online pirating, the subcommittee chairman, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., made his leanings clear. He said creative industries have been “absolutely decimated” by the economic fallout of the pandemic as well as online pirating of copyrighted material that hasn’t slowed down.
“Piracy has become easier and faster and much, much more common,” Tillis said. “The current system is failing and it’s failing badly.”
He confided that the first live music performance he saw, when he lived in Nashville, was the Eagles. The rock group, with Henley as singer, drummer and songwriter, produced some of the best-selling albums of all time in the 1970s.
The other senators who attended the hearing, Democrats Chris Coons of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, expressed support for changes to update the copyright law.
Copyright holders maintain that some network operators have manipulated internet-provider addresses in a way to make other networks appear responsible for the file-sharing. Entertainment industries have been pushing tech platforms to do more themselves to police content that violates copyright.
On the other side, users of the content have accused copyright holders of alleging infringement where it doesn’t exist. Internet companies say they have worked actively with the creative industries to block access to illegal content and protect the copyrights.

No desire to start an argument...but...
what about Henley’s testimony is disagreeable to you? The remarks quoted seem sensible to me.
 


Top