Follow Us

DMN on Feedburner
Connect with:
divider image

Don Henley: ‘Videoing a Concert With a Phone Is a Violation of Our Copyright’

eagleslove
 

The Eagles have been stepping up measures to ban smartphone picture-snapping, filming, and standing at their shows.  But this goes beyond simple etiquette.

“Videoing a concert with a phone is a violation of our copyright,” Don Henley recently told the Daily Telegraph.  “Google own You Tube. They don’t need any more free content.”

+Don Henley: “In Google’s World, We Are Not Creators, We Are Not Artists…”

The comments are part of a long-running fight between Henley and YouTube.  But it also speaks to the growing debate over the use of smartphones at shows.  “It spoils it for people who are going to come to a show in the future,” Henley continued.  “We’d like for them to experience it for the first time in the audience rather than experience it on a crappy video that sounds horrible.”

+Introducing Kimd, a Solution for Obnoxious Concert Cellphones…

“But I don’t think there’s any going back now. People feel so entitled to being able to use their gadgets and post things on the web.”

The Eagles are currently touring in the US, before heading overseas.

 

blue bar background graphic
Comments (88)
  1. Anon

    Good luck with this one, Don. I’m not sure anyone would call watching a video recorded via smart phone an experience. If so, one could go buy “Hell Freezes Over” and avoid the near-gouging prices the Eagles charge for their shows. But hey, if someone’s willing to pay it, good for them. Pot, meet Kettle.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “I’m not sure anyone would call watching a video recorded via smart phone an experience”

      It makes precisely zero difference which type of camera you use.


      Reply
    2. musicman

      I truly hope everyone understands why ticket prices, to major shows in particular, have become so outrageous. High-profile tours cost a fortune to produce and the artists, labels and promoters can no longer count on music sales to offset the cost and realize a profit. You can’t have it both ways.


      Reply
    3. Versus

      Ticket prices are not “gouging”. The costs to organize and run a concert tour are very high. Musicians, lighting, tour staff, venue staff, security, venue rental, travel, hotel, insurance, visas, etc. And the artists have to make a living

      Maybe if “fans” didn’t “share” the music so much, and actually paid for it, that could subsidize the tour costs to some extent. As is, it’s the other way around; the tour has to also subsidize the recording of the albums.


      Reply
  2. Irving Mindreader

    I imagine whenever anyone tells Azoff that ‘Don Henley has been quoted in the news again’, Irving’s now-Pavlovian kneejerk response is to correctly assume the worst.

    So, in the eternal vacuum of anyone else constructively telling Don to put a flipping sock in it :

    Hey Don,

    You’re rich and famous times a hundred. Every time you open your mouth, you come off sounding like music hitler. All your asshole is showing. Again.

    So…pretty please, for the sake of everloving christ, just shut the fuck up.

    Signed,
    Everyone


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “You’re rich and famous times”

      … so I’m entitled to steal your IP.

      If you were unknown, I would also be entitled to steal your IP — in that case because you’re worthless pos.


      Reply
      1. Irving Mindreader

        Excuse me. Three slight corrections here, all from the vantage point of the ostensibly trespassing fan video.

        1) Your public performance + my video makes it our IP, not yours. So fuck you for saying that.

        2) Nobody is stealing anything. I paid for the privilege of being here. You’ve been compensated for the performance, and will be further compensated by YouTube or the MCN for its rebroadcast in perpetuity. So fuck you for saying that too.

        3) As if you didn’t already look like a sufficiently gaping dick, you are bitching about how your fans pay tribute. Fans who in their incomparably trivial lives saw opportunity to reap a little social validation for their presence at your show. If they only knew what trite little nuisance you take them for.

        So yes, giant fuck you. Time for you to go re-examine everything.


        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          “Your public performance + my video makes it our IP, not yours”

          omg… :)

          “I paid for the privilege of being here”

          Exactly. You need a written permission from the owners if you want to film their show, that’s IP 101.


          Reply
          1. Irving Mindreader

            Look, man. I don’t know if you are really as stupid as you seem in this thread, but at the risk of making an obvious point even more inescapably simple :

            You can be right and wrong at the same time. You can win the battle and lose the war, just by enforcing a rule that does more harm than good. Ask the RIAA. They perfected the formula.

            If you agree with Mr. Henley, there’s nothing more I can do save your soul. You are both on the wrong side of history. God forbid you accommodate the fans who made you.

            I’m done here.


            Reply
            1. John

              You are on the right side of history because you support piracy? Right. Who told you that? Larry Page? Or one of the neonazis who run the Pirate Bay?


              Reply
              1. Irving Mindreader

                Uh, hopefully I’m on the right side of history because I know the difference between piracy and tribute.

                Piracy is the theft of a professionally produced event video, which this isn’t.

                Tribute is when fans capture and share clips from a show, which this is.

                Piracy is bad. Tribute is good. Capisce?

                Punishing consumers for public display of idol worship is as dumb as it gets. It’s cruel, stupid, and counter-productive in the extreme. On this point, universal enforcement of copyright policy can suck a bag of dicks.

                > 80% of the video media being posted to the web is UGC, my friend.

                Given a choice, you can either call the cops on everybody and spend the rest of your life surrounded by lawyers.

                OR

                You can be thankful that fans care enough to want to broadcast their love for you, and in doing so give rise to your career in the first place.


                Reply
                1. Anonymous

                  “Piracy is the theft of a professionally produced event video”

                  Your ignorance is epic and limitless. :)


                  Reply
            2. Versus

              What does “right side of history” mean?
              Does not sound like any sort of valid justification for anything.
              It sounds like another version of:

              “It’s OK because everyone is doing it”
              “You just want to be on the side that’s winning”

              Surely the Nazis, Stalinists, and slavers all thought they were on the “right side of history”. Such arrogance neither comprises ethical rectitude nor guarantees victory.


              Reply
        2. JustWatching

          Wow, are you a tool. You must be one of those clowns that sit around Starbucks all day just top use their wi-fi, their electric and the seating that is there for paying customers. In other words, free rent, free internet. I am sure you feel you are entitled to this because some lame-ass professor you had in school told you so. You are a complete waste of life.


          Reply
        3. musicman

          Sorry, your presumptions are way off on this. Under current copyright law, if the performer and venue do not provide explicit permission, you have no ‘right’ to record their performance. No matter how wrong you believe this to be and how much anyone pays for a ticket, doing so is unambiguously illegal. Don Henley aside, instead of railing against this with all your (expletive) might, maybe you might show some regard for the wishes of too many artists I know, some of who make music you may love, to come up with a solution (or set of solutions) that place a reasonable,value on their creativity.


          Reply
    2. Stephen craig aristei

      This is very funny……..! Does Don really think that someone who loves/likes the Eagles is going to care about crappy cellphone video on Youtube ?……I think some people have too much time on their hands !


      Reply
    3. Versus

      No, not everyone. I’m with Henley on this one.
      Whether he is rich or famous or not is irrelevant to his point.


      Reply
  3. rikki

    What a MORON….guess he has to goose sales……If i videotape you and make a profit, hen you deserve a cut….but if it cost ME money will you pay for my ticket?


    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    “Google own You Tube. They don’t need any more free content.”

    Speaking of YouTube — SICKEY is indeed the name of Google’s new crippled YouTube service, according to androidpolice.

    Google is also renaming All Google Music Play Access or whatever to Google Play MuSIC KEY because that’s so much better.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      …which reminds of VIDescape.

      I’m not personally going to use it unless/until they figure out how to display thumbnails at the correct aspect ratio.

      However, they’re claiming to pay “the highest streaming rates on the net”.

      I’d really like to see some documentation for that. If it’s true, it could be the solution to a lot of the problems everybody’s going to have when Google launches youtubemuSICKEY.com.


      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        According to the owner, they pay between 0.02 and 1.5 cents per stream depending on traffic and click through rates on the platform.


        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          …which doesn’t say anything at all.

          YouTube pays around .01 cent, so this could be a lot better — OR a lot worse.


          Reply
          1. Anonymous

            However, it’s more important than ever to understand that Google’s new YouTube Music Key can’t be used by artists.

            Because — and this is YouTube Music Key’s primary selling point, according to the leaked screenshots — YouTube Music Key is not a streaming service — it’s a download service.

            In Google’s own words: “Whatever you find, Music Key lets you collect the videos for playback any time, without an Internet connection.”

            Most people are not aware of that yet. But once an artist signs with Google, her entire catalog will be available as free download on YouTube Music Key — on release day!

            This means she’ll never sell a record again.

            From YouTube Music Key’s contract:

            “Catalogue Commitment and Monetization. It is understood that as of the Effective Date and throughout the Term, Provider’s entire catalogue of Provider Sound Recordings and Provider Music Videos (including Provider Music Videos delivered via a third party) will be available for the Premium and Free Services for use in connection with each type of Relevant Content, (excluding AudioSwap Recordings, which will be at Provider’s option) and set to a default policy of Monetize for both the Premium and Free Services, except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement. Further, Provider will provide Google with the same Provider Sound Recordings and Provider Music Videos on the same day as it provides such content to any other similarly situated partners. The foregoing will be subject to reasonable quantity of limited-time exclusive promotional offers (in each case, with a single third party partner) (“Limited Exclusives”), as long as a) Provider provides Google with comparable exclusive promotional offers and b) the quantity and duration of such Limited Exclusives do not frustrate the intent of this Agreement.”


            Reply
            1. Anonymous

              This may be an even greater threat to YouTube than to artists:

              Nothing stops you from signing up for a free month and then download all the music you want, for free.

              Should you ever wish to add a few hundred albums, you just pay $10; download the content and cancel. Cheapest way to buy all your favorite music.


              Reply
              1. Anonymous

                All in all, it’s the world’s first free music store: Sign up for a free month and download all the music you want.

                Google finally made its own Pirate Bay.


                Reply
                1. Anonymous

                  Combine with the fact that ContentID won’t be available for artists that don’t sign with Google, and you have the recipe for disaster.

                  For Google, that is:

                  1) Illegal videos are no longer blocked at the door.
                  2) Google actively encourages customers to download “Whatever you find” (in their own words), including illegal content.
                  3) Fans download the illegal videos, with Google’s explicit permission.
                  4) Artists sue Google.
                  5) Google dies. :)


                  Reply
      2. Anonymous

        “which reminds of VIDescape. I’m not personally going to use it unless/until they figure out how to display thumbnails at the correct aspect ratio.”

        …I’d just add that they’re fixing this now, along with other issues, so they actually begin to look like the YouTube alternative people want.

        Sure, it’s a new site, still in Beta I believe, but you do have to start somewhere. And they’ve got the basics right:

        Unlike Vimeo, they pay content providers (they actually claim to pay “the highest rates on the net”), and unlike VEVO they’re not limited to music videos. Plus, they are industry-related; they keep improving, and they seem ambitious.

        There’s still a remarkable lack of YouTube Music Key articles and discussions on this site. But that’s going to change in the next few months.

        And when it does, the need of a Google alternative will be obvious to everybody in the industry. YouTube Music Key is the most destructive attack on music and musicians since the Pirate Bay, and we need a new solution asap.


        Reply
  5. Eagles Fan

    I think it’s mean not to be able to take photos of the concert, after paying an absolute fortune to see The Eagles perform I was more than pissed off I wasn’t allowed to, I even got bollocked for taking a selfie with my hubby FFS! I don’t care what reasons are given for not being able to take photos, I have seen hundreds of concerts and not one of those artists banned it. The Eagles are my favourite band along with The Beatles but I have never come away from a concert feeling so pissed off that I couldn’t get any photos as a keepsake of the concert.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “I have seen hundreds of concerts and not one of those artists banned it”

      I’m sure you have — but people didn’t have 4k cameras back then, and they couldn’t upload movies to piracy sites like the new YouTube.

      Welcome to the future.


      Reply
    2. Versus

      I think it’s “mean” to the other audience members to be taking photos during a concert.


      Reply
  6. FarePlay

    On an entirely different note. I go to concerts to hear and see bands play. There is nothing more distracting and obnoxious than having people with their lit smart phones waving them in the air in your site line. You can’t even move to relieve yourself of this annoying epidemic, it’s everywhere.

    At Coachella they were paying celebrities $20k to mingle with the crowd and take selfies.


    Reply
    1. Versus

      Agreed. That and the constant talking, even during very quiet shows, often ruins the concert experience. I have been going to less shows as a result of audience rudeness (and movies as well).


      Reply
  7. Ester

    Elizabeth, I’m coming to join ya.


    Reply
  8. AK

    Kind of misses the point – accessing media via a mobile device is now dominant and integral to social connectivity – sharing the personally important moments from concerts is just that, about sharing moments – this sharing also multiplies exposure of the event and can be a huge promotion support – while there are serious pirates out there can’t imagine anyone who really cares or would spend money on the concert seriously getting much value out of watching a concert streamed by a phone.
    Of course there are serious IP rights to be respected, but so is the new media/social reality. Hiding from this transformation is what music co’s did to Napster or how newspapers ignored the implications of classified adds (~60% of their profit) going on line. Rather than policing the ubiquitous and now natural social behavior of so many, creativity needs to be turned to new sources of value that can be created and tapped from mobile engagement.


    Reply
    1. FarePlay

      Ever thought of writing ads for Hallmark?


      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        Or for the Pirate Bay…


        Reply
        1. FarePlay

          Or Google.


          Reply
          1. FarePlay

            Or AdRev.

            Disclaimer: AdRev is currently mentioned in another DMN article.


            Reply
          2. Anonymous

            “Or Google”

            Same thing these days…


            Reply
    2. Anonymous

      Why do you hate music?


      Reply
  9. Anonymous

    Kate Bush says no to video cameras now, too — she prefers to have contact with the audience.

    Could be the next trend.


    Reply
    1. Howard B

      Another artist who’s 15 minutes ran out long ago. Adapt …


      Reply
      1. try harder, Google fanboys!

        She is actually more successful than 99,9% of all US “startups” or whatever you want to call a money laundering scheme these days.

        She has spent more time in the studio than Google’s lifetime.

        Take a moment to process that.


        Reply
  10. music fan

    Personally, I have no desire to take out a cell phone at a show and try to record it. I go to concerts to experience the music in the moment. But I think Don Henely’s remarks show him to be a bit of a control freak. It’s not like people are going in there with professional recording equipment to make a commercially viable copy of the show. It’s just a bunch of crappy short cell-phone videos with jumpy pictures and horrible sound. I don’t get why he’s feels so threatened by that.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “It’s just a bunch of crappy short cell-phone videos”

      Really? 4k ain’t enough for ya?


      Reply
  11. gopalo

    Two years ago, only a few of my college students even knew who The Eagles were.


    Reply
  12. Adam

    A few weeks ago some meth head murdered his roommate because she was always blasting the eagles and wouldn’t turn off the music. The eagles have to be the most annoying, over-played band in the history of classic rock. Why would anyone be surprised at their attitude? What a bunch of losers.


    Reply
  13. Willis

    Don needs to settle down. No phone has the quality to produce anything that could be sold. The videos posted to YouTube or for personal enjoyments are promotional.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “No phone has the quality to produce anything that could be sold”

      Completely wrong — modern phones are 4k. And sound doesn’t matter (countless YouTube videos mix original sound with out-of-sync live footage).

      “The videos posted to YouTube or for personal enjoyments are promotional

      Completely wrong — here’s how it works: Uploaders need written permission from the owner to post any content, short or long, audio or video, lousy quality or HD, to any website.


      Reply
      1. Irving Mindreader

        Un-real. What the f*** is wrong with you? Attitudes like yours are *precisely* why this industry is a nuclear wasteland. And your strategy is to double down?

        Stop thinking of music as a product, and start focusing on music as an experience. Your survival depends on it.

        20 years ago, we could probably have saved billions in market cap by following four simple steps :

        Meet the fan. Ask their name. Write it down. Care (or pretend to).

        Apparently that was far too complicated to juggle with all the hookers and blow.

        Now, in order to not lose the embattled sliver of ground you have remaining, the steps are even simpler :

        Observe the fan. Embrace the fan. Adapt.

        Notice we’re not talking about scarcity or control?

        Good. You’re learning.


        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          I think you’re a bit confused — here’s how it works in the real world:

          If you wish to make a living as a professional recording artists, you need to sell your products from iTunes. That’s how you make money. Period.

          Audio-only streaming was a failure: It loses money 24/7, people don’t want to pay for it, and it’s worthless for artists.

          Video streaming was doing very well until YouTube rather unexpectedly decided to commit suicide this summer. Currently, there are no realistic alternatives, but a vacuum this size won’t exist for long…


          Reply
          1. Irving Mindreader

            Okay, bro. I sure am glad one of us is living in the ‘real world’.

            Good luck forcing billions of people to change their behavioral trend. Consumers love being ostracized and vilified. More of that seems like a great idea.

            But hey…I’ll get off your lawn.


            Reply
          2. GGG

            False. That’s only how you make money if you’re old and/or out of touch and/or unwilling to think beyond the status quo and/or lazy and/or stupid.

            For the rest of us, we make money plenty of other ways.

            Also, I like how such staunchly anti-piracy folks in here ignore the fact that 90% of the bands complaining they don’t make money were the kids stealing everyone’s music for ten+ years.


            Reply
            1. FarePlay

              “Also, I like how such staunchly anti-piracy folks in here ignore the fact that 90% of the bands complaining they don’t make money were the kids stealing everyone’s music for ten+ years.”

              Is there really any other way to be than staunchly anti-piracy? You may be the dated one, out of touch here. I mean piracy has gone on for15 years and if you look at the trajectory of the music business down, down, down, piracy has certainly been a major contributor and there are musicians who do want to make money.

              But then again the only fair thing to do is let the copyright owner decide. “Take down stay down” is really the best alternative to slow piracy. For artists, whether they be musicians, songwriters, filmmakers, authors, photographers, video game makers, whatever, they get to decide if or if not they want to support piracy. Google’s deprived of their favorite slogan “free speech” and no single individual or government gets to decide whether a site is infringing or not and take it down.

              On the other side, we need to push for harsher penalties for those who ignore stay down and continue to “knowingly” make content available that they’re not authorized to offer. You and your fellow streaming supporters should welcome this with arms wide open.

              As to the other part, you saw the quote from Peter Sunde basically calling Pirate Bay a for profit enterprise, I don’t believe they were water-boarding him in prison at the time, so the revolutionary charade for piracy is basically bankrupt, as it always has been. And the musicians you claim to have been downloading stuff illegally a decade ago? There’s probably some truth to that, but the reality TODAY is piracy is a rip off, so perhaps these musicians see things differently, now, a decade later.


              Reply
              1. GGG

                I don’t really disagree with anything here, but the point of bringing up the bands is that they, my generation, shot ourselves in the feet. Now, don’t take that as me justifying stealing from them, the point is that I find it dumb that these bands can steal music for 10-15 and turn around thinking they just magically tell everyone else to buy their stuff.


                Reply
            2. FarePlay

              Staunch anti-piracy. Yeah you could say that. I talk to musicians all the time who put their heart and soul into recording something that matters to them and they see it ripped away from their hands. For what? So some lowlife can make a couple of bucks. We’re not talking about someone whose ripped off you wallet, this is somebody’s dream you’re messing with.


              Reply
              1. GGG

                Yea, and I see musicians every day who have careers because half a million or more people streamed their song on Spotify and/or YouTube. It’s a double-edged sword. Bands like Grizzly Bear can complain about only selling 100K copies while being on every blog and late night show, but would they have sold much more pre-piracy? I don’t think it’s a coincidence the indie scene, festival circuit, blogosphere, etc exploded during piracy. Music isn’t any more popular than it was 20 years ago. So why weren’t there 50 festivals in the US back then? Why weren’t more indie bands playing arenas like they are now? It’s because of access.

                Major label artists who were around at the turn of the millennium certainly have ground to stand on for complaining about piracy. But hardly any band that’s built a career in the last 5-10 years has album sales to thank. They have access to thank.


                Reply
                1. Anonymous

                  “But hardly any band that’s built a career in the last 5-10 years has album sales to thank”

                  True — because piracy cut sales down by 50%…


                  Reply
                  1. GGG

                    Sure, but bands still find ways to have careers.


                    Reply
                    1. Anonymous

                      Yeah, people will always need t-shirts.


                    2. GGG

                      So if you made enough money to happily live your life as a musician by selling merch, getting syncs, playing shows, etc, it wouldn’t count because the money isn’t coming from your music? That’s just stupid.


                    3. Anonymous

                      “So if you made enough money to happily live your life as a musician by selling merch, getting syncs, playing shows, etc, it wouldn’t count because the money isn’t coming from your music?”

                      Now you get it, except there wouldn’t be anything happy about it.


                    4. GGG

                      You’d be out playing the music you loved making to people who love your music, and making money doing so? And you wouldn’t be happy? Jesus, no wonder your career is in the shitter. You’re the most irrational pessimist I’ve ever interacted with.


            3. Anonymous

              “the fact that 90% of the bands complaining they don’t make money were the kids stealing everyone’s music”

              According to who, GGG?

              The voices in your head, as usual?

              Let’s not forget that you were the one who once stole people’s music — you said so yourself.

              I know you don’t do that anymore, and that’s cool; I’m sure we’re on the same side here. But don’t accuse innocent people of imaginary crimes.

              Real piracy hurts a lot and we all have to adjust to the fact that today’s concert audiences are equipped with video cameras nobody dreamed of ten years ago — and that they’ll be equipped with broadcast quality gear within this decade.

              You can, in fact, argue that cheap GoPro cameras already are broadcast ready since TV stations actually use them as of right now…


              Reply
              1. GGG

                No, based on the fact that I was in middle school when Napster launched, saw how much it exploded when cable modems became the norm, and saw it explode even more when I got to college in 2004 and every hipster had to know about every band lest they be seen as uncool. You were already too old to be part of the generation (my generation) that was stealing music, so all you saw was statistics.

                I was part of it, and so was a huge chunk of people now in bands. 90% was purposeful hyperbole, but any band made of people in the 25-30ish age range most likely stole music in high school and college. If they say otherwise they are lying. It’s just a fact. Any statistic will back up how prevalent it was, so why you’re arguing this is beyond me.


                Reply
                1. Anonymous

                  “90% was purposeful hyperbole”

                  Not sure about the ‘purposeful’ part, but other than that… :)


                  Reply
                  1. GGG

                    I’ll put it this way; line up 100 bands made up of members around the 25-30 age range, and far more will have collectively pirated music than ones that have not. I would guarantee that.


                    Reply
                    1. Anonymous

                      …and I’d be careful issuing guarantees based on anecdotal evidence.

                      Again, the point is that a typical live audience can produce videos in broadcast quality.

                      This opens an entirely new can of worms — aside from the obvious fact that flashing phones are extremely annoying, they’re even worse than lighters.


                    2. GGG

                      I wouldn’t, since I’ve spent the last 10 years working with/being friends with these people, while you’ve been yelling at us to get off your lawn.

                      And I’m not talking about concert videos, though I agree with you and also hate when people take them.


                    3. FarePlay

                      “I’ll put it this way; line up 100 bands made up of members around the 25-30 age range, and far more will have collectively pirated music than ones that have not. I would guarantee that.”

                      I can’t think of a single person I know or have met that doesn’t change over time. And actually, if they don’t change and grow most of them end up with fairly miserable lives. For a long time piracy was able to position itself as some kind of cultural revolution. It isn’t and never has been. I believe that most people are good and fair by nature and piracy thrived because there was a perception created that kids and bands had been screwed by the labels, so game on.

                      Well now nearly a third of the music sold comes from the indie community. And those kids ten years ago started making their own music and found the environment just as toxic from piracy as from the pre-existing gated record business. Not one major pirate site is a not for profit, yet they’re giving away someone else’s work and making money from it.

                      Making it even worse is these pirate sites are like guys who break into your car and steal your stereo. They do $700 dollars worth of damage to your car and sell your stereo for $20. Really, we’d be better off giving these guys the $20 and telling them to get lost.

                      GGG your 28. It will be interesting to see what think when your 35.


                    4. Anonymous

                      “your lawn”

                      GGG, you’ve made the most amazing and hilarious assumptions about me, but this is really over the top:

                      I do not have a lawn, OK? :)

                      “And I’m not talking about concert videos”

                      What a pity, that’s what everybody else’s talking about.


                    5. GGG

                      To Fareplay: Again, I don’t particularly disagree with anything you said there, but it’s still about the fundamental shift that my generation led, and what has since happened to get to a place where any and all everyman/woman is able to record and distribute music on a level field. Obviously we all know it’s not level in reality, but there’s certainly far more equal opportunity than in the past. The Fareplay Family Band wouldn’t have gotten shelf-space at Tower Records, but you can now put your music on iTunes just like Beyonce. And have it heard/bought but literally anyone anywhere in the world with a computer.

                      So I think our fundamental difference in opinion (or another of many haha) is that you think those worlds can still coexist. MAYBE it still can, and maybe it could have with a slight change, like making DLs $5 instead of $10 or something, but I think we’re kind of too far gone at this point. So when I’m 35 it won’t matter because streaming will have taken over and nearly everyone consuming music will be monetized.

                      To Anonymous: The other anonymous post (although maybe i was you) I responded to was talking in very broad points so that’s what I responded to, and everyone did in turn, as well. So try to keep up.


      2. Willis

        Incorrect. There no phones that can export production-quality (salable) video or audio.


        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          “There no phones that can export production-quality (salable) video”

          That’s just total nonsense, Willis.


          Reply
  14. Johnny Gagnon

    We live mostly in a world surrounded by copy cats and idiots whos level of empathy and respect to their fellow brothers and sisters in society usually depends on : what do I get out of it …. me , me , me …… just zero respect for others!


    Reply
  15. Howard B

    The minute Don referred to his audience as “They” I figure he’s probably lost them anyway.


    Reply
  16. DNog

    So let’s say you’re going to see your favorite artist and it is clearly advertised that no smart phones or cameras will be permitted in the show? To the point where they check you at the door and turn you away to your car to go put it away and come back? Are you really going to not see your favorite band because you have to be without your phone for 2-3 hours? That may be an unrealistic mindset to some, I’m not here to make a stand on what is wrong or right, I see both sides of the coin. As an artist I can see how it is frustrating when you put time work and money into your stage/light production on tour just to have someone share it to all your fans in generally a shitty shaky video quality. You want it to be a first time overwhelming experience for your fans. Kind of like when you see a movie trailer these days that shows all the good parts already. You’re not near as happy leaving the theater after as you would have been had you not seen every great part weeks earlier. It’s also really annoying for fans to have to look around your phone in the air or your flashes from bff selfies all show long. There really isn’t a grey area in my opinion here which sucks so it may never change.


    Reply
    1. oj829

      Okay. Sure, Don. I’ll miss that potential call from the babysitter to spend quality time with you and only you.

      Keep dreaming.


      Reply
    2. Versus

      That’s one solution. Another is to simple announce clearly that photography, video and audio recording will not be permitted. That should be on the agreement when tickets are purchased.
      Security then should simply eject those who violate this rule. Gradually people will get the message.

      This can be up to the discretion of the artists. Those who don’t mind such behavior at their shows can set their own policies.


      Reply
  17. Joe Hooper

    I guess the peaceful easy feelin’ is now like a tequila sunrise at a sad cafe.
    I can’t hide my lyin’ eyes and wouldn’t want to be in those shoes,I can’t tell you why. But in the city one of these nights some new kid in town always takes it to the limit in the long run like some desperado.
    That’s life in the fast lane for ya and I’m done here, it’s all just wasted time…
    I send you the best of my love,
    Take it easy,
    I’m already gone.


    Reply
  18. Veteran - US MUSIC INDUSTRY 1970-today

    No one is going to stop anyone from taking a smart phone into a show.

    I was at a show recently where there were “no recording” signs posted on either side of the stage. The emcee got booed for announcing no pics/vids. The audience (over 7000) did it anyway. It was acknowledged by the band that people were going to do so, despite being asked not to.

    For small locally based bands, video of shows can be a way to increase some audience numbers. Equally, poorly recorded videos can be a detriment if being used to “sell” yourself to a prospective buyer, who now all use YouTube when considering what acts to purchase for a show.

    all you who are anti … news flash … you’re not going to stop anyone from doing it, and the public doesn’t care one bit what you or anyone else thinks.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Banning video cameras from shows is not a problem at all.

      Cinemas already do it — a man was jailed for 33 months after recording Fast And Furious 6, while another was sentenced to 120 hours’ unpaid work for uploading the video.

      The latter might in fact be the perfect approach to all kinds of IP-theft.

      Let’s see how these guys like to work for free…


      Reply
  19. Anonymous

    Smartphones are the devil. If I see any bitch ass teenager recording my music, I’m going to throw his little iPhone on the ground!


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “If I see any bitch ass teenager recording my music, I’m going to throw his little iPhone on the ground”

      Whatever would you want to do that for? :)

      It’s much better to do what Kate Bush does — politely ask your fans not to disturb the concert. Tell them you want to connect with them, not their phones.


      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        No, fuck them. FACT: If they are taking pictures of video of me, they are violating my copyright. That’s a $150,000 fine.


        Reply
  20. Greg Spence Wolf

    I am a musician and I make most of my money performing. 90% of that is tips or live CD sales.
    My other chunk of income is paid gigs.

    Before CD’s and the internet. Almost all musicians made their money performing. A few were lucky enough to also make money through record companies, radio royalties, etc.

    Occasionally I sell a CD on iTunes based on a YouTube video or a iTunes download, but that is less than 1% of my income. People give me money either because they need a musician and I am reliable and do my job, or because they hear and see me perform and connect with my act. They like the song, my sound, maybe they like my look. To try and eek out a living on the web without a good performance is a waste a time. A great performer or song can make money, but people will give you money to perform even if they don’t have to. Nobody has to pay $100 to hear the Eagles, they can turn on classic rock radio. But people do.

    Don Henley can block his content on YouTube. And YouTUbe, make no mistake, was set up to make money off of other people’s content. But he won’t make the money if he makes the fans paying what for me is a days wages for a ticket, frustrated.


    Reply
    1. Greg Spence+Wolf

      Oh and by the way, I don’t shop at Walmart Don henley, so sell your CD’s at a store that respects the rights of its employees to earn a living wage.


      Reply
  21. Granturizmo

    I’m a musician and consumer. The ethics of it all l would hope indicate that people would understand that people have to pay alot of money just to get equipment to perform with. The prices for decent to professional quality tube amps, birch or maple drums,pro keyboards,we are already talking about thousands of dollars not to mention studio time in an acoustically “sound” studio costs money and I don’t think that people should be looked at as assholes because they want to see as much profit as possible. We are in a capitalist society,but most don’t even break even. So I understand that piracy in all shades is wrong especially if the artists don’t get a reasonable cut. That should be a no brainer but I have to keep in mind that this great country of ours was stolen by a mindset of people that think they have discovered a country that already had inhabitants and mostly built on the profits of “free” labor by the toil and justifiable enslavement of other human beings. So I get it. People think that if they can get away with something that they are entitled to it by any means necessary. That being said, I also don’t think that a performance should cost $100 per person for one group to do 1 performance…


    Reply

Leave a Reply

Connect with:


× 2 = six

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  1. OUR SPONSORS

  2.  
  3. Most Heated!