Famed Eagles singer says that without fixing the current Safe Harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) copyright holders are “left with the unjustifiable and oppressive burden of constant policing” practically every site on the Internet, and complains that digital music retailers “bullied” the record industry into getting rid of DRM.
Don Henley, the famed Eagles singer best known for the lead vocals on hits like “Desperado”, “Witchy Woman”, and “Hotel California,” is apparently upset with the current state of copyright law in this country and thinks it’s high time Congress did something about it.
His first complaint is that the US Copyright Office, in his opinion, “clearly has not been a strong enough advocate for copyright owners, particularly when you look at its most recent decisions.”
I’m not sure what he means by “most” recent, but the most recent decision it made this year was when it legalized DVD encryption circumvention for educational purposes, phone jailbreaking to run legally acquired programs or to run on a different network, circumvention of video game encryption for security flaw testing, cracking computer programs protected by dongles when they malfunction or become obsolete, and the ability to bypass ebook controls that prevent them from being read aloud.
Surely he can’t believe these are bad things, or does he?
Henley thinks the poor decisions it makes are because of the fact that the Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress, and therefore subject to an “inherent conflict of interest” being that the former is responsible for regulating or restricting access, and the mission of the latter is that of a library which is to “provide free access to the public.”
“Perhaps the time has come to separate these institutions so that they are not at cross-purposes,” he tells Rolling Stone. “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.”
But, it’s unclear why he thinks it’s not enforcing the law. Everywhere you turn copyright holders seem to be a pretty good job of seeking redress for infringement in the courtroom, some to the extreme. Is he asking that it become more proactive and police the Internet for them?
What Henley really seems to think is that the music industry needs more policeman on the Internet, that each site should be held liable for illegally hosting copyrighted material even if they’re not the ones responsible for making it available in the first place, or are unaware that it’s even there without prior notification. He wants sites to police themselves at the risk of costly fines.
That’s right, he wants to gut the Safe Harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to accomplish that goal.
“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,” he continues. “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.”
Never mind the distinction that ISPs and websites aren’t consciously distributing copyrighted material illegally for commercial gain. They remove it when notified and in some cases, like that of YouTube, actively filter the site of copyrighted material. That’s hardly the case of vendors peddling bootleg DVDs. The intent of the Safe Harbor provision is to make sure that online service providers (OSPs) can’t be held liable for everything any user does without its knowledge, for without it the result would be a very different Internet than the one we know.
Henley complains that copyright holders have had the “unjustifiable and oppressive burden of constant policing” OSPs with little to show for it other than “embittering” music fans and making users of sites like YouTube angry. He’s right there, but even if the sites did police themselves music fans and site users would still be smart enough to know who’s really to blame. YouTube isn’t taking down Prince videos because it wants to – it’s being TOLD TO!
Probably the craziest thing Henley says in the interview is that the music 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.” If by online retailers he means Apple, then he’d be wise to thank them instead for having managed to do what it couldn’t – create a viable digital music store that passed the 10 billion-sold mark this past February.
Aside from this, there’s the pesky fact that DRM was an absolute nightmare for music fans, and was easily circumventable anyways. Apple iTunes purchases could only be played on up to five PCs and wouldn’t play on rival portable music devices like Microsoft’s Zune, and vice versa. Each retailer had their own “top to bottom” DRM systems for selling, playing and protecting music. Without a universal system in place it was always doomed to failure. It was a nightmare as many of you I’m sure recall, and is why Steve Jobs “bullied” the music industry in calling for an end to DRM.
If he’s so concerned with DRM then how about locking up CDs as well? It seems odd to be concerned with digital music DRM while selling tens of billions of unprotected CDs. The simple answer is that DRM has never worked to halt music piracy and never will.
The death of DRM has not, as Henley adds, “increased the theft of music and other intellectual property,” but rather, in my opinion, increased legal consumption because it makes it easier to purchase and consume content in ways of your own choosing. People don’t want to be locked into a top down system where the media player they buy then determines where, when, and how they can consume content. If you buy a digital song or movie is it so unreasonable to want to play it where and when you want?
At least he doesn’t think the Internet has “destroyed rock” like Stevie Nicks does.
Stay tuned.
What a stupid, greedy, stasist (against change), statist shrill!
Copyright is dying, technology has made it so, the ‘state’ and corporations just refuse to accept the inevitable, so keep up the pretense that copyright is still viable.
Patents are probably on the way out too, given China probably doesn’t genuinely care about them.
I never liked the Eagles music. I never would buy or download their crap.
Maybe the music isn’t as good as it used to be for a reason other than blaming someone or something else.
Start acting responsibly folks.
I’ve make my living as an artist and a songwriter. Back in the early days I signed publishing deals and record deals with the majors that, yes, were not always fair or perfect and I have no desire to go back to that way of doing business. But even in their imperfection they did provide me with the ability to focus on my craft and develop fully into my profession by way of some advances that helped keep my head above water. If I’d had to go out and get a regular job I would not have been able to realize my potential as a songwriter and artist.
I have no desire to see the emphasis put on incarcerating college students who download “free” music. And as an independent artist I’m even happy to have some of the great exposure that youtube can provide. But I take issue with anyone making money off of my music and leaving me out in the cold-especially when they are a huge entity. When I see a pop up add and know that the artist gets nothing while youtube, google, or whoever pockets the cash– it is just wrong and it’s particularly bad news for the future artists who’ve yet to make their mark.
The gate keepers–Google, Youtube, and all the P2P sites which use music to draw the attention of millions to whom they sell advertising, have no law that requires them to pay the content providers. It’s not fair that they pocket that income flow with no regard to paying those who’s work is the ONLY reason they have eyeballs on their sites. There is no “free” music. It costs money to pay musicians, takes time to write songs, studio costs, etc. That is not free. Nor is it “free” when it’s flowing from any of those sites that provide it. Those sites make money off of it.
Music you hear for “free” on the radio has been licensed to use by the radio stations as they have to comply with LAWS that require some of the income stream from the millions in advertising dollars back into the pockets of the creators. Kind of like watering a plant guys. Gotta do that…or there won’t be much of a plant. It was very arduous to get those laws put in place, but by providing that protection for the creator of the works they allow for those who created those works to eat and pay their rent and focus on bringing more songs into the world-which enriches all of us and many generations to come.
Imagine you have a garden. Let’s say the flowers are the songs and the plants themselves are the songwriters, artists, etc. Today’s gate keepers of the sites that give music away provide no income stream going to the creators– is like having a garden and not giving anything back to it. Just pick pick pick those flowers. See what kind of a yield you’ll have as this next generation of talented participants (musicians, engineers, writers, singers, background singers, etc.) dries up on the vine. You may have the occasional pop breakthrough on some “reality” TV show….but that’s slim pickin’s compared to the full potential you’re destroying so you can blindly profit through the work of others.
I have had a great career. I’ve released about 10 albums and, while not a household word everywhere, I’ve done well and have great fans in different parts of the world. I have been able to sustain myself comfortably. No I’m not Don Henley. I’m like a whole lot of independent working musicians making my way and leaving my little mark in the world. Some of my songs like “Sand & Water” have helped lots of people heal through grief and loss. It’s got a value. I have been very blessed to be able to feel a part of how much that song has helped people. I would hate to have missed the opportunity to be able to write that song because I had to get to my job. Writing is my job. That’s why I was born and I’m lucky that it has given back enough for me to not have to get a job to pay my bills. But that’s only because I didn’t come of age in this wildly unfair desert that exists today for songwriters.
My top hit (I was one of three writers) was “This Kiss” which was a smash for Faith Hill. If that same song was released today it would earn a fraction of what it did in 1999. It would not have been possible to put my kid through college earning what any of songs would earn today.
That’s bad enough…but it’s further insulting and disturbing that millions of advertising dollars continue to be “earned” through music, which has never been more popular, but none of that income stream is flowing back to the source.
Do they think creativity will just continue to flow magically from an endless supply of wanna be’s stumbling onto writing their big hit material? No. The really brilliant generation-spanning songs are like jewels and they are born of many years of honing that skill in most cases. What you’ll see (already) is an endless supply of mediocre oceans of songs from myspaces and facebook artists–and any of those who may be extraordinary –good luck finding them …and good luck seeing many of them ever get to their best work because they can’t afford to work for nothing.
My almost 30 year old son is a wonderfully talented songwriter/artist/producer and he should be able to choose to be a working professional musician. If he writes a hit song I don’t think it’s fair that others can make money off of it and not be accountable to pay him anything.
I agree that there’s no going back. But kids…can’t we agree that those giant conglomerates making money off the creators should at least have to pay a percentage back? You guys that are in your 20′s and 30′s should be protesting loudly because “the man” is totally ripping you off.
Yeah yeah…I know…the big bad record and publishing companies were very very greedy and they made some bad moves. Forget that. “The Man” is the gate keeper. The websites that make money off of music with no compensation to the artists/writers are screwing us way worse than the greediest of the old regime.
Should we go back? Absolutely not! But come on folks. Let’s not be naive. Nobody’s tending the garden today. We’re letting these big gate keepers profit with no trickle down. And we’re supposed to thank them for “giving us the opportunity to be heard”?
Any work that is great and garners much attention deserves to be compensated. If that means it’s flowing freely from websites–fine! But those websites should not be allowed to rake in the advertising dollars while the providers of the content starve.
Otherwise I fear this next generation of great writers and artists will not have the support they need to live–so they’ll be working full time at some other job to make a living…and so many great songs won’t be written….think of your favorite songs and try to imagine a world that didn’t have those songs.
Aside from those artists and writers–there are countless others–engineers, studios, musicians, string arrangers, ….just scores of people who are in this garden…suffering through this endless drought and already having to seek other ways to make a living. The talent of these folks will be lost to us as a culture. We all will suffer for the lack of creative growth while we allow these massive corporations to pocket all the cash with pop up adds that don’t even provide sustenance to those who’s work is used.
Let’s go back to the garden. Have you ever walked past a vacant lot in the inner city? Dust, dirt, wind and a lot of waste. If we don’t water, fertilize and give something back it’s gonna be slim pickin’s as they say in the South.
My worst fear is that the big guys already have a strong hold on Washington and even if we all agreed about these protective laws they just wouldn’t pass because it would cost too much to cut the creators in on the profits. How short sighted.
Giant corporations have strangled our cattle industry, farmlands, (Google Monsanto!), infiltrated our lives with chemicals, steered our politics, and on and on. I’m afraid they may already hold the keys to empty out the Juke box of it’s quarters. Given the lack of humanity they’ve exhibited towards good hard working people in so many other realms, I doubt they’re capable of seeing the destruction they’ve caused by ignoring the need to compensate creators while using the fruits of their labors to further their profit lines.
The only thing that will change anything to them is to show them that it will improve the bottom line. We got to get them to see that throwing a little water and good soil into this garden and they’ll have even better more compelling artists and songs to draw in the masses. Give something back to the source out of the profits. It’s sooooo elementary.
Ok now that it looks completely depressing let me shift to the positive side. One thing keeps me going. There is great great beauty in what we create and the power of it is intrinsic. I encourage my students to write for the sake of writing and not let the unfairness of these dark ages of the new paradigm stop you from creating. Songs, poetry, art is something that moves us and if you have a gift please be generous and nurture it within yourself. Van Gogh never got to experience the incredible powerful joy and depth that people have and continue to feel through his creative efforts. He suffered tremendously in his life with very little accolades but he never stopped doing the work. The value of his contribution is priceless, regardless of it’s popularity in his lifetime.
It’s not about the money. But it is incorrect for others to profit from someone else’s work and then give nothing back. Plain and simple. Basic humanity 101.
~Beth Nielsen Chapman
bethnielsenchapman.com
“…it is incorrect for others to profit from someone else’s work and then give nothing back. Plain and simple.”
Hear hear.
Any sites that do use copyrighted material for COMMERCIAL GAIN – P2P sites included – ought to be made to pay.
What do you call wage slavery then?
Most of us are underpaid for the work we do; and you have the cheek to expect us wage slaves to fund others because of some state statute *; get real!
* statutes are not law unless we consent to them being law.
We are just indirectly salvaging our unpaid dues from the corporate system (this is distinct from the Capitalist system) and the theft called taxes.
I think this is demonstrably wrong. Take a look:
http://www.ccmixter.org/
Listen to the ed picks. There’s almost nothing on the ed pick list that is inferior to what you hear on the radio. In fact, as art goes, most of it is a great deal BETTER. This is music all being made available for free: most of it for non-commercial use, but some of it even for commercial use.
There will always be people to make music. Those that make money at it are going to be those who’ve figured out how to navigate the Youtube and Google era, and get by without CD manufacturing.
I think the main problem is as simple as “supply & demand”.
There wouldn’t be much if any piracy if music wasn’t so overpriced.
People would buy much more music and I’d sure do better…
Plenty of hipocracy on both ends…
Yes copyright laws should be enforced too, but only if it’s blatent theft, not people sharing music with there friends or experimenting on youtube… I don’t mind anyone doing such with my work.
Music is way overpriced, lower it to where it should be and watch the business boom.
That’s the new business model that will work…
Universal digital media DNA encoding is needed to reduce piracy and provide accurate tracking data to soundscan,ascap,sesac and BMI. With a universal digital media DNA all of these policing and tracking issues are cleared up with one simple codec.
~ CrowfeatheR
http://www.myspace.com/crowfeatherpoject
Reduce piracy how? How do you plan on actively “tracking” all files being shared?
Maybe it’s as simple as people just aren’t interested enough in the music anymore to pay for it. http://bit.ly/9NwQEj
Ok Don, go back to your crack pipe
@Rob: Quoting you here: “Maybe it’s as simple as people just aren’t interested enough in the music anymore to pay for it.”
Why would anyone steal something for personal use that they are not interested in? It’s such self-serving nonsense. I’d have more respect for digital shoplifters (a much more accurate and less glamorous term than “pirates”) with the guts to say, “I steal music because it’s easy, I won’t get caught, and it saves me money.”
Obviously, Henley, you do not know what copyright is really for, and that it’s main function is to balance your rights
over copying and distribution with the right of the public to enjoy and reuse content in a fair and legal manner. There
are two sides to that coin. You can’t have one without the other because it is that balance which makes your wealth
and career possible.
That you would expose third parties to unpredictable and uncontrollable liability proves you do not understand the
inevitable consequences. A wide array of music and entertainment businesses and technologies would be rendered unavailable to American kids, placing most American artists in a damaged and shrinking national market with no growth potential and no way to move forward unless they leave the country. You may have plenty of fans but they aren’t rich
enough to carry you in an environment which would become fundamentally toxic to your industry and new technology.
This is what happened every time publishers panicked: the dreaded player piano rolls, record players, cassette tapes,
VCRs, cable TV networks and broadcast satellites all turned out to be the salvation of instead of bringing doom to the
market and now Apple is raking in most of your money because they are among the few who refused to panic yet again.
The answer to public access, authorized or not, is to get ahead of the wave and take the lead (and some control) by
turning it into your promo channel. Flood it with good content which people would prefer and that brings them to your
stores for more. For the first time in history your fans are doing all the work for you. You are getting a free ride to the
homes and earphones of more people than you could ever hope to reach with those expensive LPs, cassettes and
CDs you paid for and earned somebody else about twenty times the skim you were grudgingly granted. Most of that
free content was ripped and converted by people who don’t know what they’re doing so there’s a big opportunity for
you to fill this new channel with decent product and with your approval, most people would dump the junk for the real
thing. Naturally, each of your own tracks is an open door to your store where they can get all the stuff you can’t put
into such a file, like concert tickets, fresh vinyl (you’d be surprised), whatever merchandise you want to and, most
importantly and effectively, your thanks and approval.
Oh yes, it’s giving away all you’ve got but it costs you a lot less up front than industry plastic and you get every cent
that comes back. You are your own producer, with total control of your gig for the first time. Your fans are voluntary
employees and promoters, with tens of thousands at a time working for free everywhere at once, reaching corners
you never knew existed or could reach on your own and always carrying you ahead to new ears. Not even Apple,
with tons of your money in their banks already, can compete with you on a playing field you own.
But what do you care? You already have your fortune. Though you have proven you know the old machine which
made you rich is broken and doesn’t work as well you choose to speak for the easy money you still have coming.
You know what doesn’t work and you have the experience and means to start up the next version of the music biz
so stop acting like a loser and take the music biz away from the whiners that have already lost it and don’t want to
grow up. Shake off that foggy retirement cheque mentality and get back to your real gig. Griping from a RAC chair
doesn’t suit you and certainly doesn’t help your friends. Stop fighting those useless bastards. Replace them and
their ways in your own business and get it over with. Once you learn how to save yourself maybe you can turn
RAC into a school and incubator for artists to build their own labels.
You can try to buy the old machine a few more years or you can get busy building a new one. It’s up to you
where you spend your life. Either way the rest the world is not going to wait for you to make up your mind.
Don who?
Indeed. Those that continue to use DRM still feel the sting when it fails.
I also love how everything that has given the industry grief is somehow everyone else’s fault. The industry has conducted business on the basis that they are perfect in every way and that they do no wrong and everyone else is out to get them – ala head in the sand approach. Meanwhie, society is moving on whether or not the industry wants it to. It’s tiring waiting for the industry to catch up to modern society and more and more people will just continue on without it.