David Letterman Mocks The Eagles Over Refusal To License Their Music
from the well-deserved dept
Rob Hyndman alerts us to this amusing story about David Letterman mocking the Eagles and their ridiculous policy on licensing their music. Don Henley, in particular, has quite the history of being really, really angry about anyone daring to want to enjoy his music. Just a few months ago, he was angrily attacking some other musicians for daring to do cover songs (leading to this epic response).That brings us back to the recent Letterman show. Apparently, the Eagles were performing in NY and Dave was talking to an audience member who was excited to go to see the band. So Dave wanted Paul Shaffer to play some Eagles music. That resulted in a discussion between some of the show's staff, in which one claimed that the band wouldn't even give them a number for how much the music would cost as they have a "flat no policy for television," while another claims that you could "play three lines" without getting sued (which is a potentially dangerously naive view of fair use). There's a bunch more debate, before Dave asks the show's director in the control room, Jerry Foley, what to do. Foley says "play the music and see what happens" leading to much cheering. Letterman and Shaffer go back and forth debating which song to play... before Letterman finally realizes that the Eagles' music just isn't worth it:
"You know what? I'm not that interested anymore..."When you make listening to your music a chore, don't be surprised when some people decide it's just not worth it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: david letterman, don henley, fair use, licensing, music licensing, the eagles
Companies: cbs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Only those who actually bought any of their albums can name the other song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe also New Kid in Town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're off by some decades there.
When I was in school 30 years ago, the Eagles were thought of as something that old people listened to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're off by some decades there.
But the issue here goes deeper than that: the Eagles wrote some great music for others, and laid down some great master tracks. But they never shared -- they considered each song a "final work" like a painting; the result is that while a lot of people actually know, and sometimes even like, the stuff written by Henley, Hotel California is the only song that people actually *associate* with them.
But then, compare that to a group like Dead or Alive -- which again, probably very few people could name two songs done by them. And yet, there have been so many remixes and covers done of "You Spin Me Round" that it's not thought of as "the previous generation's music" even though the subtitle on the original version is (like a record) which dates it pretty well.
For some reason, The Eagles always remind me of the poem Ozymandias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Will it still be relevant in 2114? Impossible to say. Maybe the passage of that time will finally render it substantially less meaningful. But we're not there yet, and "Desperado" is still as achingly beautiful as it was 40 years ago -- for any listener with a brain and a heart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For songs to remain relevant to culture, they have to be known, and performed, otherwise they become a chapter in a dry history book, and only known to music historians. The known and performed part is more important than any intrinsic quality of a song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is so going to define my demographic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is so going to define my demographic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So remember, when you are living live in the fast lane, you need to be careful because you could wind up in court and whether you win or lose, all of your money could be already gone. In the long run, it's just not worth it to play their music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is how stupid this is...
THAT is how far OUT OF MIND the eagles are as a band to me: irrelevant... and i say this with one of my ten cd's in my truck being a best of eagles...
that, and don henley is a 'tard in wayfarers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Curious
Or does that change because it's broadcast on TV? How does that work for any other band who records their live performances of covers and releases the videos?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Curious
Interesting side note, my buddy recorded a bunch of music festivals on his cell and put them on YouTube. Every single takedown notice was because it was a cover song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Curious
You can get a compulsory for an *audio* cover. But you need a separate sync license for audio that is accompanied by video. And there is no compulsory sync license. Has to be negotiated one by one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just Curious
(For people who, you know, want to pay money to buy them.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
This is why few people are impressed by WKRP when they see it in reruns or on DVD. It's just not the same show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
In the WKRP case it finally has been resolved with a new DVD release that will have the original music restored. Too bad this is one of the very few exceptions and not the rule.
'WKRP in Cincinnati' is getting a DVD release with its original music
On Oct. 28, Shout! Factory will release the first complete series-spanning WKRP DVD set, with its original soundtrack gloriously restored. (Orders through the Shout! Factory site get early delivery on Sept. 23.) The 13-disc set will include not only new bonus features (including a 2014 panel discussion with members of the cast and crew), but actual songs by a staggeringly broad range of artists including Captain Beefheart, Elvis Costello, the Rolling Stones, Luther Vandross, Ray Charles, the Sir Douglas Quintet, and Huey Lewis & the News. Somewhere in sitcom heaven Johnny Fever and Venus Flytrap are exchanging cool ’70s-hipster handshakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
Another example would be Quantum Leap which does have DVDs, but with generic music dubbed in instead of what was in the original broadcast. Blech.
It seems to have stopped being as much of a concern for more recent shows, possibly because of the rise in popularity of DVD releases. A show airing now will quite likely have the rights secured up front for whatever they'll be including so that a DVD release is included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
So take the Wonder Years (even though it is out/coming out) for example. Do you think it is wrong for the artists who negotiated a contract for use of music in the late 80s to demand a new negotiation 15 years later? Or do you put the blame on the show creators who didn't have the forethought to negotiate sales for future releases?
I suppose I can understand the frustration with shows that existed before the saturation of VHS and DVDs just because they had no way of knowing, but I find it hard to criticize the songwriter for wanting control over his or her product - which is actually the crux of the article.
It doesn't actually hurt the musicians if the TV show with their song is pirated. So why not hold out for more money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
In other words, it's all about how middle men divide up culture into as many little pieces as possible so they can sell it off a piece at a time. You would think the right to use a song in a TV show would extend to all uses of that TV show into the future, but sadly those are different pieces with different price tags.
And the big corporations like it this way because it keeps little people out of their business and gives them an excuse to hire lots of lawyers and middle men.
It wasn't a big deal when the big corporations controlled the means of distribution, but now the internet lets anybody distribute music and video, and that's why copyright is such an issue for them. They can't do anything without the proper contracts being signed, but the little people are going around publishing material left and right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
"You would think the right to use a song in a TV show would extend to all uses of that TV show into the future, but sadly those are different pieces with different price tags."
Not really. If the contract between the show and the musician says one time, it means one time even if the consumer had no say. If it says one time, then you can't get mad at the musician for wanting the distributors to hold up their end. If it says unlimited plays, then yeah go ahead.
But I think you answered yourself with this...
"Each is trying to get the best deal from the other one..."
Yep that's all it is. A negotiation between two parties -neither of which we belong to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
What do you do when the person who needed the ditches says "Screw it! I'm not paying $20 an hour. I'll go find some other project instead."
Do you hold out for the $20 and lose out on work, or do you take the $10 that was originally offered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
So no, I for one don't necessarily blame anybody for not predicting DVDs becoming a thing. And I don't necessarily blame the musicians/songwriters/etc. for wanting to negotiate a beneficial arrangement. But I wish there was some kind of middle ground, something akin to the compulsory licensing that Mike mentioned, so that those kinds of things could just "happen" and not be a major issue. Older shows are reran on TV with their music intact (or not, I guess; I wasn't aware of the WKRP situation) so a reasonable person ought to be able to expect them to get a DVD release. But since those formats are treated so differently it ends up being a roadblock.
In the past I've preordered DVD sets at full MSRP (from the manufacturer's site no less, not even Amazon or something) the moment I saw the announcement that it was finally coming out. It's not about a few bucks difference either way (although I suppose there's a limit) but about enjoying a DVD release of a show I liked without having it mangled by alterations. Personally I'd much rather buy a complete DVD than track down the show online anyway. What good will it do a musician to hold out for more money if in the end they get none at all, and keep a popular show off the market in the process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
"What good will it do a musician to hold out for more money if in the end they get none at all..."
I guess that's just the risk the musician will have to take. To use the Wonder Years again, I would think that if I were Joe Crocker (or whoever holds the rights to that theme) would want to hold out for more money. That's a pretty important part of the show, but I'm sure there are lots of musicians that had music placed in season 6 that are more than happy to take what they can get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
I put the blame on the on the people who turned copyright law into a tangled web of restrictions that do more to lock up culture than to actually protect it. In today's world, you need a separate license for everything.
Record Company Exec: OK, I think that about it does it. You've got the license to perform the song on stage, the license to film you performing the song, the license to stream that video over the internet for free, the license to sell copies of the performance on DVD and the license to use clips of that performance in other media.
Singer: Great! Now I just have to pick out what costume I'm going to wear.
Record Company Exec: Woah! You didn't mention anything about a costume! We're also going to have negotiate a dramatic use license, a performing while in disguise license, a comedy license in case you do anything funny while on stage...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
I blame long copyright terms. If copyright were 10-20 years this wouldn't be nearly as big an issue. It would become practical to just wait until it's public domain - as it was originally intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
That has all been replaced on the DVD with the worst keyboard-heavy "80s music" you will ever hear. It's an absolute travesty that to my knowledge has never been fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
Some companies got around this music rights issue by replacing the music in the TV series. Besides WKRP, the North America release of the Equalizer uses music from the 90's for this 80's TV show...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
Reportedly the DVD release of the Fox show Werewolf had to be scrapped because they couldn't get the rights to two songs used in two episodes and the studio no longer had separate audio tracks so that the music could be replaced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Curious
That's why Youtube is becoming a graveyard of taken down videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But - in doing so, they lose the right to complain when people consume the music in an unauthorised way. This might mean recording from the radio, borrowing discs, tapes or viewing bootleg videos. But, these have happened since the time they cut their first disc. They might also choose one of the thousands of other bands, some of whom are more relevant today.
Most new arguments also make little sense in reality. Digital services don't pay enough? They pay more than alternatives if the customers in question won't pay without previewing or won't buy physical media. You don't want your album being played out of order or in an inferior quality? Newsflash: this has been happening for decades, even with your vinyls and CDs.
While they have some of the biggest selling albums in history, why would non fans buy one? Old fans won't buy new CDs and new vinyl each year without some major incentive, and new fans won't know what you sound like, at least not legally. Because of my nationality and generation, I know Hotel California and the fact that Lebowski hates them. What incentive do you want to give me to find their music? Oh, it's not on Spotify? Oh, here's another band...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean analogies are always tricky, but let's say you hate Disney and all things Disney because... I dunno... capitalism. So don't go to Disney. Don't buy their products.
But your response is to hop the fence and ride the rides. I mean, if there is an empty seat it doesn't cost them anything extra. It's not stealing. It's ridesharing.
Sorry dude, I don't buy it. Pirate all you want, but don't treat it like some social cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the proper analogy right now is this - I don't want to watch Disney, I don't buy Disney, I don't pirate Disney, but I'm still being treated like I'm pirating or ridesharing.
Sure, don't call it a social cause. Call it the autonomous response to getting blamed for something that wasn't even my damn fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reality is that low level piracy will always exist. That doesn't change the artists rights to decide how and when their work will be sold or used (within the limits of what they can control).
While they have some of the biggest selling albums in history, why would non fans buy one?
Perhaps maybe they have reached the point as artists where they are confident enough in themselves that they realize that they don't need to give away too much trying to attract that last "fan". The band toured after many years of not being able to deal with each other (the Hell Freezes Over tour, so those who might not think they have a sense of humor), and since then have been a guaranteed sell out any time they perform. They really don't need the boost, they have plenty of great fans who talk them up already.
Your assumption is that every band is always in a rush for one more fan and one more sale... can't you appreciate that perhaps they just no longer need to play that game?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So if they're no longer looking for sales, what's the issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Copyright exists so that artists can be adequately compensated for the work they do. If they have been adequately compensated, as the statement above suggests, then there is no need for the work to be protected by copyright anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUiL7F8TZ2s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of an author I had a run-in with
[me]I was emailing him, and mentioned my opposition to DRM.
[author]The police should have the authority to search anyone's hard drive over the net and remove anything they deem suspicious. Anybody who objects to this is a thief or thief wannabe.
[me]I object. And aren't you being rather harsh to someone who has bought every book you ever wrote?
[author]Big deal. All the royalties I've ever gotten from you wouldn't even pay for dinner at my favorite restaurant.
My former collection of his stuff is now pulp fiction, and I haven't even been able to bring myself to pirate his stuff, much less read it.
Don Henley is just another jerk of the same stripe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reminds me of an author I had a run-in with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reminds me of an author I had a run-in with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reminds me of an author I had a run-in with
He may have porn on there!
What if some innocent child were browsing his hard drive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reminds me of an author I had a run-in with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reminds me of an author I had a run-in with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reminds me of an author I had a run-in with
Does anyone else see anything wrong with this supposed author's response?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reminds me of an author I had a run-in with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reminds me of an author I had a run-in with
In an unrelated question, if I were to rummage in your trash to find literature you have finished reading, what author(s) might I find?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reminds me of an author I had a run-in with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reminds me of an author I had a run-in with
Simple, just send an email to every author who DRMs their books. After a while, you'll have a complete list of whom to purchase books from and whom not to. If everyone does it, then there can be no defamation lawsuits. ;-)
I weep for the thousand or so email servers that will die to bring us this information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reminds me of an author I had a run-in with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a statement from Techdirt? What's happening here? Are you guys maturing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We Have Comprehension!
Now I understand. Thanks, Henley!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Policy enforcement during the concert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most likely nothing after that exchange, but unfortunately few people have Letterman's bankroll to so brazenly break the law.
And really, Dave, "Life in the Fast Lane" is your song, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a problem of money buying too much
Ok, then there is the case of Bob Dylan who music critics have repeatedly called the worst known performer of Bob Dylan songs. But even with all the better covers, he'll still make a comfortable living.
But in the U.S.A., a comfortable living is nothing. You cannot exert your democratic influence on politics (in the U.S., that requires buying congress members since voting exerts as much influence on politics as choosing individual bricks does on architecture), you cannot buy security and medical care matching that of a hobo in a civilized country.
In other countries, after a few millions there is nothing you can ask for that does not actually lower people's respect for you. In the U.S., you are scraping the bottom of the barrel unless you have a few billion to juggle around.
And that means that anyone figuring out a way to make a dime needs some monopoly on making that dime in order to turn it into a billion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a problem of money buying too much
That's not unique here. When Cecilia Giménez ruined the Jesus fresco in Zaragoza and the Church made a chunk charging for entry to see the ruined but famous fresco, Giménez wanted her chunk. This is not, I think because Giménez is inherently greedy, but because those of us at the bottom (most of us) have been rendered so desperate that we'll do anything, including jackassery, to get ahead.
They charged $1.30 for entry, incidentally, and made $26,000. That's now desperate we are. That's how poor we are.
And I'm not sure what's wrong with Don Henley, but he seems so desperate that he's killing the cultural value of his art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep up the great work Henley. You'll be an unknown before you know it. Then you can do like the rest of the has beens and go around bothering people with the "remember me?" line. Can't happen soon enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don Henley is a Dick!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don Henley is a Dick!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take it Easy. . .
So i would say requiring approval first isn't really that unreasonable. So your music is not used in a way or by someone that you would in no way support!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Take it Easy. . .
I understand this sentiment, but consider using copyright for this purpose to be an abuse of copyright (it's not the reason that copyright exists.) There is no concept of "moral rights" in the US. That's a very good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?p=47742
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- "Ever hear of The Eagles"?
- "The who?"
- "No, not The Who, The Eagles"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's on First?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]