RSS
Don Henley Still Really Confused: Actually Claims Copyright Office Is Not An Advocate For Copyright Holders
from the wtf? dept
The aging rocker brigade continues to make foolish statements about the internet and copyright. We've already mentioned John Mellencamp's and Stevie Nicks' anti-internet comments, but we should probably include Don Henley in there as well. You may recall that at the beginning of August, after actually winning a copyright claim against a politician who used his song in a commercial, Henley went on a tirade about how evil YouTube is, and how the government needs to do something.
Apparently he wasn't done yet, though his version of the government's take on copyright seems to come out of a parallel universe. Rolling Stone did a short interview with Henley, where he spews some of the most uninformed garbage on copyright law that I've heard in a long time:
But Henley wants to believe in this fantasy world of a different sort of Copyright Office... and he even has an equally laughable explanation:
As for the idea of moving the Copyright Office into the USPTO or into a similar role under the Department of Commerce, that again inherently confuses the purpose of copyright law. However, even if that did make sense, it's got nothing to do with being a more "effective way of enforcing the law." The Copyright Office does not "enforce the law," so the whole concept of Henley's comments makes little sense.
Separately, it looks like Henley has been talking to someone in the RIAA about how that darn DMCA (written with the help of the RIAA) just isn't working any more:
From there, Henley -- again, apparently living in a parallel universe -- claims that the labels never should have removed DRM:
We've seen lots of really clueless music industry folks, but this interview really takes the cake as a new low.
Separately, I should mention that I only came across this interview because of a (typically) angry tweet from Ticketmaster CEO Irving Azoff angrily tweeting about it. His complaint wasn't about Henley's blatantly laughable statements. Nope. He was downright angry that Rolling Stone referred to Henley's ignorant comments as "conservative." Seriously:
But, of course, what copyright really supports is (you guessed it) middlemen and gatekeepers. And what's one of the biggest gatekeepers around in the music industry these days? Oh right... Ticketmaster. Frankly, this is pretty disappointing. About a year ago, I met with various Live Nation execs who really seemed to get the whole new business model/CwF+RtB concept, and were talking about ways that they could better enable that for musicians. While Live Nation definitely didn't have the greatest reputation, I was actually excited maybe a major player in the industry would start to enable new business models, focusing on the future and the opportunities of setting the infinite free and selling scarcities, rather than misguided whining about copyright. Then the Ticketmaster merger closed, and it looks like with Azoff in charge, those plans are going nowhere fast.
Apparently he wasn't done yet, though his version of the government's take on copyright seems to come out of a parallel universe. Rolling Stone did a short interview with Henley, where he spews some of the most uninformed garbage on copyright law that I've heard in a long time:
While the onus of legally pursuing infringement has always been on copyright owners, the U.S. Copyright Office clearly has not been a strong enough advocate for copyright owners, particularly when you look at its most recent decisions. I think that fact has been lost over the last 10 years, especially with respect to digital media.This is incredibly laughable if you know anything about the Copyright Office, which has been the leader in pushing for ever more draconian copyright law and has a history of almost always siding with content creators over the public. The 1976 Copyright Act, which completely flipped copyright on its head in this country came out of the Copyright Office, and some of the same folks are still there (including the boss, Marybeth Peters) -- and haven't changed their opinion much. Peters, in particular, has always been a staunch supporter of copyright holders over the public.
But Henley wants to believe in this fantasy world of a different sort of Copyright Office... and he even has an equally laughable explanation:
Because the Copyright Office is a part of the Library of Congress, and the mission of a library is to provide free access to the public, there is an inherent conflict of interest. Perhaps the time has come to separate these institutions so that they are not at cross-purposes. After all, the Patent and Trademark Office is part of the Department of Commerce and, since U.S. music, film and other creative copyrights comprise one of our country's most lucrative sectors, here and abroad, moving the Copyright Office under Commerce Department's umbrella might be the most effective way of enforcing the law.Mr. Henley is woefully misinformed, yet again. The idea that providing access to information is somehow "a conflict of interest" with copyright law would make almost any copyright scholar choke with amazement. The entire purpose of copyright law was to provide more information to the public. And yes, it was through a system of monopolies by granting exclusive rights, but to suggest that these two ideas are in conflict is wrong. And, Henley also seems a bit confused about the Library of Congress, falsely thinking that it's something like a giant public library, and extrapolating from that.
As for the idea of moving the Copyright Office into the USPTO or into a similar role under the Department of Commerce, that again inherently confuses the purpose of copyright law. However, even if that did make sense, it's got nothing to do with being a more "effective way of enforcing the law." The Copyright Office does not "enforce the law," so the whole concept of Henley's comments makes little sense.
Separately, it looks like Henley has been talking to someone in the RIAA about how that darn DMCA (written with the help of the RIAA) just isn't working any more:
Congress should amend the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), eliminating or dramatically limiting the Safe Harbor provisions so that ISPs [Internet service providers] and websites such as YouTube, MySpace and Facebook have legal liability for hosting infringing content. Just as distributors and retailers have equal liability under the law for distributing and/or selling bootleg or infringing music, films, software, and other intellectual property, so should online companies bear similar liability at law.Doesn't that message sound pre-written out by someone in the industry, rather than something that just popped out of Henley's mouth? Either way, it's also quite ignorant of the situation. There's a very good reason why the safe harbors are in the DMCA and that's to make sure the right party is liable for copyright infringement. The reason that distributors and retailers can be liable for distributing or selling is because they're the parties actually responsible, rather than a separate third party tool provider. The ISPs in this case are more like the companies selling the CD players that play the bootlegs. Does Henley think those consumer electronics firms should be liable as well?
From there, Henley -- again, apparently living in a parallel universe -- claims that the labels never should have removed DRM:
The recording industry was bullied by online retailers into removing protective measures, such as DRM, from their sound recordings or else facing the prospect of these retailers refusing to distribute their catalogs. Yet, so far, digital royalties on music have failed to live up to the hype; in fact, removing such protective measures has increased the theft of music and other intellectual property.First of all, the labels weren't "bullied" into removing DRM, they finally came to their senses after consumers revolted from DRM, and there was example after example after example of DRM harming legitimate customers (or leaving them high and dry after a server was taken offline). And the idea that removing DRM increased infringement is equally laughable. Everything that was released with DRM had that DRM cracked and was available online already. Removing DRM hasn't changed anything when it came to infringement.
We've seen lots of really clueless music industry folks, but this interview really takes the cake as a new low.
Separately, I should mention that I only came across this interview because of a (typically) angry tweet from Ticketmaster CEO Irving Azoff angrily tweeting about it. His complaint wasn't about Henley's blatantly laughable statements. Nope. He was downright angry that Rolling Stone referred to Henley's ignorant comments as "conservative." Seriously:
Don's views are "surprisingly conservative" to whom? The writer? Please be sure to thank him for his editorial comments. It's interesting that a writer from a magazine empire that was founded and built around music and musicians now seems to be taking a position in opposition to it's content providers. How about free copies of Rolling Stone for everybody - in perpetuity?Calling someone's views on copyright "conservative" hardly is taking a position "in opposition to content providers." On top of that, it's downright obnoxious that Azoff seems to think that writing about music and musicians means supporting greater and greater government-granted monopoly rights for those musicians. As we've seen time and time again, less copyright tends to lead to greater creative output and greater net benefit. So, if you actually looked at the evidence, it would seem to suggest that a publication supporting music and musicians would also support less copyright.
But, of course, what copyright really supports is (you guessed it) middlemen and gatekeepers. And what's one of the biggest gatekeepers around in the music industry these days? Oh right... Ticketmaster. Frankly, this is pretty disappointing. About a year ago, I met with various Live Nation execs who really seemed to get the whole new business model/CwF+RtB concept, and were talking about ways that they could better enable that for musicians. While Live Nation definitely didn't have the greatest reputation, I was actually excited maybe a major player in the industry would start to enable new business models, focusing on the future and the opportunities of setting the infinite free and selling scarcities, rather than misguided whining about copyright. Then the Ticketmaster merger closed, and it looks like with Azoff in charge, those plans are going nowhere fast.
I have an app...
App Developer Conversations: What Does The iPad Mini Mean For The App Economy?
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
I have a business...
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
I’m looking for policy...
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
PROOF musicans do too much drugs
COPYRIGHT was created to give you a few bucks to keep making shit not sit on your gay lazy ass and live in ozzy osbourne and kiss style mansions
AKA idiot of the day award to DON HENLEY
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
maybe we shoudl investigate where the pot musicans comes from
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Hooray for the underdog?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Hahaha!
It's funny because he read the article online for free.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The Boys of Summer
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.rollingstone.com/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
the elderly
"I'm old and confused. Where are my pills? Did that [Henley's preferred derogative term for a minority] steal them? Everyones out to get me. The governments got their taxes and their roads but wheres my money? Not in the onion market thats for sure. Who are you?"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hooray for the underdog?
Actually the majority of Americans are overweight as well. ;-)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Your headline skips some important words
On its face, your headline is demonstrably false. Why did you feel it necessary to be misleading? Your arguments - whether one agrees or disagrees with their applicability -are just as effective without misrepresenting Henley's position.
You often go to great lengths to point out what you believe to be misrepresentation of the facts by others (at least those others who have opinions you deem to be misguided or incorrect). Why do you not hold yourself to the same standard?
HM
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Your headline skips some important words
His statement was that the Copyright Office is controlled by the Library of Congress which just wants to give stuff away free. He made a clear case that he believes the Copyright Office is not an advocate for copyright holders.
I see nothing "demonstrably false" in the headline.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: maybe we shoudl investigate where the pot musicans comes from
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
eagles
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Isn't human behavior fun?
Those people will see ZERO from me, not a dime.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: maybe we shoudl investigate where the pot musicans comes from
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
@ A.C. #16
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
@ A.C. #16
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @ A.C. #16
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Your headline skips some important words
He asserted the Copyright Office had a conflict (and he said it was "part of", not "controlled by" the LoC), and was not a "strong enough" advocate (which implies that he believes it IS an advocate, though to some less-than-preferred degree). You have turned that into a claim by him that the CO is not an advocate at all, merely to make it seem more extreme to aid in your arguments against his position.
Your arguments may or may not be persuasive, but they certainly do not need to rest upon a misrepresentation of Henley's statement. Especially in light of your various posts regarding assertions that the MPAA/RIAA mis-use and misrepresent statistics and that the New York Times makes up statistics based on random anecdotal reports.
It's clear that you have a real big chip on your shoulder about this stuff, and that you're not overly interested in looking at these issues from the other guy's point of view. I would hope, however, that you could at least accurately relate the facts.
My reaction when I read your headline was, "wow, Henley really said THAT?" I had in mind some of the things you yourself used to refute this supposed position of his. It didn't make sense to me that he could, with a straight face, make that kind of comment. However, when I read further, I realized no, he didn't say THAT at all. You didn't merely summarize his position, or re-cast his comments in a different way. You made up an assertion that was not supported by what he actually appears to have said.
The fact that you don't see what is demonstrably false speaks volumes.
HM
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It's Like This
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
the truth
this is what you get suing kids folks
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
@21
fucking lazy assholes get a job and quite trying to suck off everyone elses hard earned money you creep and quit defending these sicko drug addicts who put cash in to gangsters hands to further harm society and its kids
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
- "You have turned that into a claim by him that the CO is not an advocate at all, merely to make it seem more extreme to aid in your arguments against his position."
And you have added "not an advocate AT ALL" to make it seem more extreme, using your own words.
- "It's clear that you have a real big chip on your shoulder about this stuff"
Oh, and you don't? Whom are you trying to fool? You are acting by the book. The RIAA lap dog user manual, that is.
TAM 2.0?
- My reaction when I read your headline was, "wow, Henley really said THAT?"
And mine was "Of course, fucking typical Henley!." Just find all the garbage he has said in the past.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright
Oh good, a false premise. That really makes me want to take your stupid game seriously.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright
A large number of bands know this and already work to release their music themselves for free.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright
Good idea. Radiohead, Amanda Palmer, OK Go, and Nine Inch Nails have already played this game - and won.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Your headline skips some important words
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright
Wait, why? This line is the problem. This line is why you look foolish. The whole point is that this is not your only source of income.
Why attack me for pointing out smarter ways to make money and then say I can only talk about it if I'm stupid enough to limit myself to the one part of the market that you shouldn't be trying to make money from?
Seems like you have all the answers!
Your sarcasm is pretty weak. Do you want to have a real discussion or do you want to just come off like a dick?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Your headline skips some important words
From the context of his statements, I believe the headline quite accurately reflects what he was saying.
You disagree, but I believe you are the one misrepresenting his statements.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Copyright
You just made me laugh !! :)
Have a nice day !!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright
taken advantage of by people who recognize their worth and simply know how to screw them-- by the law.
Don Henley appears to cause a lot of envy - enough to be misrepresented and in what appears to be responses that are just stupid comments about the man's legendary carreer! The changes he is advocating for may never come to pass in lifetime. He does not need the money but think of all those 1 hit wonders who depend on much smaller catalog of work
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright
Copyright is more accurately described as a privilege than a right. And I have no problem curtailing privileges when it's appropriate.
Artists have a long been
taken advantage of by people who recognize their worth and simply know how to screw them-- by the law.
Yes, mostly record labels.
Don Henley appears to cause a lot of envy
It's safe to say none of the comments here are envy-based.
The changes he is advocating for may never come to pass in lifetime.
For the good of society, I sincerely hope they do not.
He does not need the money but think of all those 1 hit wonders who depend on much smaller catalog of work
The purpose of copyright is not to allow one-hit wonders to live off their one hit for the rest of their lives. It's to encourage everyone to create more. So a system that allows one-hit wonders to suceed is actually contrary to the Constitutional purpose of copyright.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Anti-priracy / internet
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment