See attached article where Don mentions he has four kids.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/n...usicares_x.htm
See attached article where Don mentions he has four kids.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/n...usicares_x.htm
Irving just twittered this... interesting reading from "COPYRIGHTS & CAMPAIGNS
BEN SHEFFNER'S NOTES ON COPYRIGHT, FIRST AMENDMENT, MEDIA, AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW, AND POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS"
"Henley, DeVore settle lawsuit; Henley rails against remixes and mash-ups, YouTube, 'dark side' of Internet; songs are not 'toys or playthings' "
Thanks for that, Rhonda. It's funny - there are two 'anonymous' comments at the bottom of the article, with utterly polarized opinions, and yet I can see both sides. There's the 'Henley should stop whining and get over it' camp and the 'it's his right to defend his property' one. I suppose us 'everyday people' will always look at rock stars and think "Oh, you have loads of money - lighten up!" but of course, they had to work hard to get where they are. His songs are his property, and it's a matter of what's right and wrong legally, and according to Don, morally. Even though reading his comments about this doesn't leave me beaming, I completely respect his right to defend what's his.
you better put it all behind you, baby, 'cause life goes on
you keep carrying that anger, it'll eat you up inside--
Well put, Troub. I agree - the copyright issues are complicated matters, that's for sure. There are so many grey areas that it makes it extremely difficult to know exactly where to draw the line sometimes.
"People don't run out of dreams: People just run out of time ..."
Glenn Frey 11/06/1948 - 01/18/2016
I am disappointed that Henley lumps all unofficial YouTube music videos into one big affront to humanity, but I'm not surprised.
Songs are not "playthings" and "toys"... I don't even know what to say to that. Perhaps Henley doesn't mean it to come out the way it sounded - as if a song were nothing more than a piece of property that generates revenue.
Yes, musicians need to put food on the table... but I think it is very telling that almost all struggling musicians welcome YouTube fanvids and the free exposure it gives them.... Exposure that gets them revenue in the long run. Not only do they understand it, they want it. Maybe they know a bit more about what puts food on the table than Henley does at this point - Henley's pantry has been well-stocked for almost four decades.
Henley has been so successful for so long I think he's forgotten that not everyone has an established fanbase; some people still have to get their name "out there" and with the demise of radio and the old-school record companies, the internet is the key. Some struggling musicians have made their careers by singing unauthorized covers on YouTube, the most famous of which is Justin Bieber - but even if you don't care for Bieber, there are other artists who have been helped as well.
One should note that the official videos sticking to the "formula" almost never go viral. It's the fanvids that are going outside the box and they are being rewarded for it by the public who eat these fanvids up. (They eat up the good ones at least - the bad ones go by the wayside, which is as it should be). If these videos have nothing to offer, why are they so popular?
Did people rush to send each other links to Chris Brown's video for "Forever"? No. Why should they? It's the same as 1000 other videos like it.... the guy sings, dances in a club, hooks up with a scantily clad beautiful woman, some special effects get thrown in... snooze. Did they rush to send each other links to the wedding video using "Forever"? Yes.... because that video was more entertaining and more original.
It cost Brown nothing. It demonstrably garnered him revenue. And the problem is...? That fans are being interactive and creative instead of sitting in their chairs listening reverently? That is the only "ethical" way to enjoy music, eh?
I guess we can sing to it, dance to it - but only in private or in a place like a club where the music has been licensed - and even then you better not record it with your digital camera and upload it to YouTube so you can show your friends your moves!
Apparently, the money you paid for that song/album in the first place allows you to listen to it in private, maybe with a few friends you've invited over. With Henley's strict stance, even messing around with his music in private is unethical in principle, even if no one else ever sees it. You're still treating it like a "plaything," after all, and therefore sinning against him as The Artist.
What I really find unfair is that people who do this are getting lumped in with file sharers and music pirates, as if there were no moral distinction between stealing music and engaging with it creatively.
I wish Henley could join those songwriters and musicians who delight in the non-commercial creative ventures their music inspires in others - like his own songwriter Larry J. McNally, for instance, who complimented a video done to the Eagles' recording of his song "I Love to Watch a Woman Dance."
Ironically, Henley himself has engaged in the derivative works he rails against - do you think Fox News or any of the other networks/news channels gave permission for their clips to be flashed behind him while he sings "Dirty Laundry" during an Eagles show? What about the personalities involved - was Sean Hannity's permission sought? Bill O'Reilly? Barbara Walters'?
What about the bloggers and websites shown, such as PerezHilton.com and the Drudge report? Was their permission sought? Have they received any compensation?
What about all those magazines tossed on the pile? Were each of the publishing companies who produced those magazines paid for that? What about the personalities who appeared on the cover of those magazines? Were they paid for the use of their image? Has Sarah Palin received a check?
And look at Henley photo-shopped onto the cover of Time magazine at the end... it's funny and I love it, but was Time paid for the use of their logo? Wouldn't stupid people believe that was an actual cover and therefore falsely associate Time with Henley?
By putting those clips and images to the soundtrack of "Dirty Laundry," Henley is changing their meaning, isn't he? Isn't that transformative? Isn't that what he condemns when it's his music that's being used? It's video and not music and I believe it all falls under "fair use," but it's still "playing" with copyrighted material - something he characterizes as unethical.
I'm not trying to diss Henley here; he sincerely believes in what he's saying and he has his reasons. However, I wish he could understand that it's not as black and white as he perceives it to be.
Some interesting reading:
Soul Music Owes Its Existence to Derivative Work
Bad Copyright Laws Are Killing Jazz and Harming Jazz Musicians
Cut It Up: Copyright, Creativity, and the Global Remix Culture
The above articles do not call for the discarding of copyright law, but for reform of it to make it less strict and stifling to creativity.
And here's a few examples which all call into question the immorality of people uploading themselves singing covers or making non-commercial small-time amateur videos sound-tracked to songs written by others:
Teen Sensation Justin Bieber discovered when manager saw him singing covers on YouTube
Journey's new lead singer discovered when group saw him singing covers on YouTube
YouTube turns Aspiring Singers into Stars
Train links to an unauthorized use of Soul Sister by UVIC on their Facebook and encourages their fans to watch it
Songwriter Larry J. McNally applauds unauthorized video done to Eagles song "I Love to Watch a Woman Dance" which he wrote
Do Viral Music Videos Sell Records?
Chris Brown's sales go up after couple uses his song in their wedding video uploaded to YouTube
Food for thought. I won't presume to say I know I'm right, but I do feel my opinion has a lot of evidence to back it up, and is therefore just as valid as Henley's regardless of the fact that I am "just" a fan.
I adore Don, as everyone well knows......but I 199% agree with absolutely everything you've said! However, I don't think Don will ever notice that there's a flip side to every coin. lol
If he could read Soda's comments, maybe, just maybe, he could begin to have an inkling and understand!
But that probably won't happen.
"They will never forget you 'till somebody new comes along"
1948-2016 Gone but not forgotten
Soda, that was so eloquent. I agree with it too. Henley's narrow focus on 'copyright' ignores the wider implications and benefits that YouTube offers.
TechDirt adds their two cents (ignore the lame comments after the article):
Don Henley Hates YouTube; Complains That the Government Needs to Do Something