Don in the Press/Blogs/etc.

[sodascouts]

I know it's hard to keep straight! I've been trying to do a little re-organizing but even that leads to confusion, lol.

[sodascouts]

So, we're talking about his comments about his new album in that album thread and his comments about the Eagles and the Forum elsewhere, but there is one thing in this article that's uniquely Don and that I feel should be talked about right here.

I quote:

As far as the record business goes, have you read Jaron Lanier's book "Who Owns the Future" and, if so, what do you think of his proposals for bringing fairness/equity to the digital age? Who do you see out there who's working with the digital distribution of music in ways that reward rather than exploit musicians and their music?
I haven't read it but I read his previous one and I really like how his thinking has evolved, particularly as it pertains to the techno-utopians and the damage they've done to our culture, including the arts — specifically music and film and the people who work in those fields. In the technocratic world of Google (which owns YouTube), my musical brethren and I are no longer artists; we're not creators — we are merely "content providers." Copyright and intellectual property mean nothing to the technocracy. They've built multi-billion-dollar, global empires on the backs of creative, working people who are uncompensated. They're wrecking entire industries.

The genie is so far out of the bottle that there's really no putting it back in. There might be a legislative fix, but there seems to be no political will. Google alone has about a dozen lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Google spent over $11 million last year on lobbying and over $18 million the previous year. They spread the money and the propaganda around like manna, employing their favorite buzz words like "innovation." Regulation, they say, will "stifle innovation," and the legislators all nod in agreement. It's an oligarchy, plain and simple. The arts and entertainment industry can't compete with that.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...#ixzz2qzqAB8KA

I've read quite a bit on this issue, and Don Henley's feelings about YouTube and Google as well as his skepticism about the viability of new business models for the music industry in the digital age are not new to me.

However, his statement about lobbying caught my eye. It's amazing to me how everyone always thinks the other side are the ones with the political influence and the lobbyists. I guess it's just human nature to always think of your guys as the noble underdogs, and the opposition as the ones with all the corruption. I see it all the time in debate.

Interestingly, though, the RIAA and MPAA (entertainment industry groups) have outspent Google, and one of their heads was very open about his understanding of how money should talk in Washington DC. Chris Dodd, head of the MPAA, had this to say to politicians to whom he had donated money, but who weren't voting the way he'd told them to vote on IP legislation such as SOPA:

"Candidly, those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."

Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/dodd..._sopa_remarks/

So a corporate head donates to campaigns not because he believes in what the politician stands for, but because he expects his money to motivate the politician to act in his financial interest when his "job is at stake." It's not surprising but it's still troubling, and his outrage that they didn't obey his wishes after he gave them money shows that he truly believes that's how politics are supposed to work.

I wonder if Henley knows that the amount the RIAA has spent on lobbying in 2000-2010 is $90 million? (source) That doesn't even count the efforts of the MPAA, nor does it include the amount spent since then, which I didn't have the time and energy to search for, lol.

Now, I truly think Don sincerely believes what he says. He's an honest guy; he's not trying to pull anything. However, these corporate entities are ALL corrupt, in my mind - the RIAA, the MPAA, and Google. I do not believe Google is an innocent bunch of folks only looking to serve the public interest - far from it. I am highly suspicious of their data mining processes, and I am disturbed by their monopolistic consolidation of web services with forced linkage between accounts in order to facilitate their intrusive practices. That of course is separate from the IP issue, but I add it to show I realize that Google is not a victim.

When it comes to spending lobbying money, however, the entertainment industry outpaces them with ease.

[secret squirrel]

Here’s an article that is critical of Don’s stance.

http://themusic.com.au/news/all/2014...ng-eagles-man/

Personally, I’m in two minds about all of this. I agree with Don that the genie is out of the bottle and we can't put it back in. But as far as sites like YouTube go, they’ve enabled me to check out songs prior to buying a cd and/or going to a gig. I listen to tracks while I’m working and if I like them, I eventually purchase something (e.g. I’ve bought a Citizen Cope album and been to two gigs, bought Expando by TBS, Live in London by Kane). Without the internet, I wouldn’t have had a chance to explore any of this music.

However, in regard to this particular case, I think any artist is within their rights to veto a version of their song that they don’t endorse. In fact, when I hear the frankly terrible versions of glorious songs used in adverts (some of which I mention in my latest blog), I wish that more artists would exercise these rights or do what Ray Davies does – allow them to use the original.

SS
xx
http://sshh-sshh.blogspot.co.uk/2014...-in-glory.html

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I can easily see both points of view. While some go out to YouTube (or wherever) to determine if they like the music and then buy it, there are fa,r far too many who do not buy music at all because they can listen for free on the internet. This was the advice I got last December: "You create an account on YouTube and have your own channel. Put the music there you want to hear. You listen to it or view it anywhere, since you have a smartphone. Why would you still buy MP3s?" I hesitated to mention that I still buy CDs. At any rate, it's not much different than the old days when I would borrow someone's cassette, vinyl, or CD to see if I wanted to buy certain music.

I've stated my stance on this many times, I don't feel the need to do it again, but I will say this. Even kids as young as 15 have lamented to me about how there's no real music out there any more, there's not a lot that's new that's worth listening to. It could be a coincidence. Most of it, I'm sure, is the wider variety of music types than from when I was a kid, but I remember having to make agonizing choices in the early 80's on which new music I could afford that month. Now it's all free and there's not a lot to pick from.

Anyway, it's Don's music and he can do with it as he pleases. If these guys don't like it, they are free to make their own music and make it available to anyone to use. Don takes a lot of heat on his stance, but most of the more heated responses comes from the very people who are trying to use his music for free, so they lack credibility in Don's eyes, I assume. I know they lack it in mine.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Soda, I'm not sure how I missed your post above. I agree with you about the lobbying on both sides, and as much as I love Google and would go to work for them in a minute, I agree they aren't a victim and they aren't innocent. I will say that in my job, we have a site that has a YouTube channel and it hosts many videos that we've made (we are the content providers and own the copyrights). We push them via various social media outlets. To host these at a video hosting site would cost tens of thousands per month. Google lets us put them on their site for free. I can't say that it saves taxpayers a lot of money, because if we had to pay for this, it wouldn't get done at all.

Anything or anyone who helps us help our Active Duty Soldiers has my support. I think what Don is looking for is copyright protection and stricter enforcement, and not for the various entities to go away entirely. At least I hope that's correct.

[secret squirrel]

I can easily see both points of view. While some go out to YouTube (or wherever) to determine if they like the music and then buy it, there are fa,r far too many who do not buy music at all because they can listen for free on the internet. This was the advice I got last December: "You create an account on YouTube and have your own channel. Put the music there you want to hear. You listen to it or view it anywhere, since you have a smartphone. Why would you still buy MP3s?" I hesitated to mention that I still buy CDs. At any rate, it's not much different than the old days when I would borrow someone's cassette, vinyl, or CD to see if I wanted to buy certain music.

Yes. I'm probably a bit atypical as I have an MP3 player (a gift) but haven't figured out how to use it yet and I don't have a smartphone, tablet, laptop, iPod or anything like that. I don't download at all.

SS
xx
Unreconstructed Luddite
http://sshh-sshh.blogspot.co.uk/2014...-in-glory.html

[WalshFan88]

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/don-h...kkervil-river/

Henley's at it again! Remember the Frank Ocean debacle? This is about a indie band covering "The End Of The Innocence" and putting it out for free.

Don, I love your vocals and you are probably my favorite singer but I can't stand your ego and personality! Seriously. Between YouTube, covers, and just general ego (remember the paparazzi "bird" photo?). Don is a very polarizing figure for sure. For speaking out against lawyers (Get Over It), he sure uses them a lot! I'm not saying this band was right but Don is over the top with the legal stuff, IMHO.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

With regard to the lobbying, I agree that it happens on both sides. To me, bottom line on this is that we need laws with stricter controls on lobbyist.

And with regard to copyright, I also see both sides of the issues. However, the bottom line on this is that I believe a song is the intellectual property of the copyright owner and they have the right to control it's use. I don't see it as any different as my vehicle is my personal property and I have the right to decide if I want you to drive away with it.

[Witchy Woman]

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/don-h...kkervil-river/

Henley's at it again! Remember the Frank Ocean debacle? This is about a indie band covering "The End Of The Innocence" and putting it out for free.

Don, I love your vocals and you are probably my favorite singer but I can't stand your ego and personality! Seriously. Between YouTube, covers, and just general ego (remember the paparazzi "bird" photo?). Don is a very polarizing figure for sure. For speaking out against lawyers (Get Over It), he sure uses them a lot! I'm not saying this band was right but Don is over the top with the legal stuff, IMHO.

Maybe if they actually asked Don if they could use his music he might be more receptive. I would think most people in the industry are aware of his feelings about these matters, and would respond accordingly.

[MaryCalifornia]

I just don't understand why someone thinks it's OK to take another's song and record it and put it out as part of an album without getting permission. It's Don Henley's song. Just because you "liked" it when you were growing up doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. These are professional musicians, who cares if they're "indie." Who cares if they put it out for free - you're telling me there is no ulterior financial motivation behind their business model? Who doesn't reach out and ask for permission? I think Don is 100% in the right in this particular case. Actually, the perpetrators come across as jerks.