Don in the Press/Blogs/etc.

[WalshFan88]

I just think Don is way too overbearing with this stuff. YouTube is another example. Most bands don't have a problem with it. I mean come on, a cell phone video is going to make someone feel like they don't need to come to your show because they've already seen it? No way. I can understand not wanting studio recordings on there, that's different. Or perhaps video from professionally recorded shows. And lets be honest - I don't think Don needs any more money - from videos or concert tickets.

Again, I said I didn't necessarily agree with the band, but I do agree that Don has a tendency to be a stick in the mud and also a bit of a jerk at times. I think he is too quick to threaten lawsuits and his hatred of social media and YouTube make him come across like someone who is stuck in the past.

[MaryCalifornia]

Well, from what I can tell from Don's end in this particular case, all that happened was that his lawyers sent a cease and desist letter. This is the least aggressive/litigious path and is entirely appropriate. It is the first little "baby step" in getting an issue resolved, and is used to start a discussion or negotiation. It is a "Hey, what's going on here?" communication. This is the type of standard legal correspondence I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Don Henley personally knew nothing about. I'm sure he does now, though!

My take on Henley's stance re: youtube and everything else is that he is raising awareness. I don't agree with everything that PETA does, but I thank God that someone is out there on the fringes aggressively trying to get legislation in place to protect animals and make us a civilized society. I'm thankful Don is out there, even if he is the ONLY one, trying to make a point about creative artists and their rights. He is doing the right thing, and he doesn't care what people think of him, because he's earned it. I hope his legacy is that he stood up for artists' rights, and that they're thankful to him.

[secret squirrel]

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.

Agree with you here. If they don't ask for permission (and get it) then they should expect some reaction. It's not like they don't know that Don Henley wrote it. And they do come across as pretty objectionable.

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

[Houston Debutante]

There are people hating on Don all over the internet because of this and I'm glad to see some people stick up for him.

It's his song, if you ask me those people are lucky he just sent them a Cease And Desist and didn't sue them.

In that article they sound like entitled whiny douchebags to me. Oh yeah they're happy to give away covers of Don's music but when you go to their site you see that you have to PAY for THEIR original music. If they're so generous why don't they give their OWN music away instead of giving away DON'S!

The answer is easy ~ they give away covers of GOOD music like Don's to promote themselves, so you check out their albums, which you PAY for. That means indirectly they're making money off of him, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. So they make money off him but they can't be bothered to pay Don for his music or even ask him. I call that a 'dick move.'

Don, I love your vocals and you are probably my favorite singer but I can't stand your ego and personality!

Don has a tendency to be a stick in the mud and also a bit of a jerk at times.

WalshFan88, why don't you try to find a way to talk about your 'favorite singer' without personally attacking him. There's a difference between disagreeing with what he says and calling him a 'jerk.'

Even I think Don's attitude about YouTube and Google can sometimes be OTT but in this case, these people WERE making money off of him indirectly, even if they don't want to admit it and want to make it all his fault.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I wish I took the time and effort to be as passionate about the things I believe in as Don is. I agree with him being OTT sometimes, and I don't always agree with how he goes about it, but I do appreciate his stance. I don't think it's egotistical to stand up for what you believe in, and I don't think it's an ego problem to want others to respect your property. I do disagree with his statements to the effect that the big companies like Google have too much lobbying interests, as others have said, no one has ever been able to top the entertainment industry. Don's problem is that some in his own industry embrace YouTube, others have just given in instead of fighting it. The ones with the real money in the business (not the artists) merely see it as another way to make money for themselves.

At any rate, I totally agree with the 'whiny, entitled' attitude assesment that someone mentioned, of the ones who used the music. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the sense that people are entitled to something just because they want it and technology makes it possible is not doing anyone any good. I guess when you raise generations of children who think everyone gets a trophy instead of just those who actually win, this is the mentality you're left with. That attitude is in the current workforce, hence the horrible last two days I've had, but that's a topic for a different thread.

[Islander canuck]

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.

Even though both Okkervil River and Frank Ocean put the materials out for free they very likely would have inderectly prfited from them. Sites like YouTube have created confusion between public availavility and public domain. Public domain means copyright on a given creativc work has expired and the work can used by anyone however they chose without permition from the copyright holder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain.

ETA: Also if they did not provide niotice of intent within 30 days of producing and prior to the release of the material and/or pay a roualty they could have been sued for copyright infringment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_license.

[Houston Debutante]

They never said they thought it was in the public domain, I bet they don't even know what 'public domain' is, they don't seem too smart. They just thought Don Henley wouldn't care. They found out different!

[Islander canuck]

True however since they may have inderectly profited from their cover they would been violating copyright if they did not gain Don's permition before releasing it. Copyright law gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to profit from their work unless they permit others to do so except in the case of statuatory licencing. With a statuatory licence they would not require permition but they have to pay a royalty and to inform Don prior to the release.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

[sodascouts]

Yes, Don could have sued them, but I'm very glad he didn't. These are young, struggling musicians and paying such a massive fine would have probably broken them financially. At the very least it would have been a crippling setback to their careers. Thank goodness he didn't destroy them with a devastating lawsuit, but rather stopped at the C&D.

[Houston Debutante]

I think that shows what a nice person he is at heart, people don't seem to realize that he could have broken them into little pieces, bankrupting them and pretty much destroying their lives if he wanted to, but he chose not to. They should be grateful instead of whining.