Letter from Tresona

[cixelsyd]

"Dear ####

I would like to take this opportunity to re-introduce Tresóna: who we are, what we do, and why we do it.

Tresóna was started, and is currently staffed, by musicians, educators and music fans. We have created a simple and cost-effective licensing platform and are committed to protecting the rights of songwriters to make sure that they are rightfully compensated for their work.

Songwriters - got it.

Thousands of hard-working songwriters and publishers

Whoops. Now it is songwriters and publishers. Got it.

Now where was I? Oh yes...

Thousands of hard-working songwriters and publishers are dependent on the royalties collected from the licensing of their music to survive.

Should have left it at "songwriters" while you had the chance. If publishers are depending on royalties to "survive", then they are not doing it right. Publishers make most of their money by publishing.

For that matter, no one should be "dependent" on royalties to survive. Royalties only exist when someone else uses your intellectual property. What if no one else uses your music? You have no right to compel others to use your music, so you will have to find another way to survive.

The melodrama gets even thicker here...

A vast majority of these publishers are small family businesses with one or two employees; they are not multi-national corporations. They are no different than the arrangers, choreographers, set designers, costume creators and thousands of others whose livelihood is dependent on a vibrant music industry.

Even if the above is true, I would guess that the majority of copyrighted music is controlled by a few large publishers/agencies, not small businesses with one or two employees.

Music is the key ingredient and the foundation of all performance ensembles. Without songs, there would be no marching bands, show choirs, a cappella groups or any other musical performance group. The licensing of custom arrangements, which is required by the U.S. Copyright Act, is often one of the smallest line items in the budget of many ensemble programs.

Permission to arrange - got it.

Most performance ensembles obtain the necessary licenses; however, there are some ensembles and organizations which refuse to do so. The abuse of the system by these groups for illicit financial gain has been shocking. There are large enterprises with ensembles that travel all over the country performing at both nonprofit and for-profit events. They pay enormous sums of money for choreographers, arrangers, contest entry, lighting, costumes, props and a host of other outside services. Despite having budgets of more than $500,000/year and generating surpluses of over $150,000/year, these organizations refuse to get the licenses they need and compensate songwriters for their songs.

Rather than pay the relatively small licensing fee and promote proper licensing behavior, some ensembles have opted instead to retain high-priced lawyers and consultants to avoid obtaining the necessary licenses. When the dedication of this small group of ensembles deprives songwriters of their ability to make a living, Tresóna and the rights holders we represent are forced to defend these rights in court.

- Are we still talking about permission to arrange? Or is this rant more about fees than rights? (Namely, the confiscatory fees associated with synchronization rights under the most favored nation provisions.)

- So far in this saga as it applies to the marching arts, it is my understanding that the lawyers have no magical way to "avoid obtaining the necessary licenses". In fact, they recommend avoiding the music if the necessary licenses cannot be obtained within time and budgetary constraints. So I am curious. Did the show choirs hire pricier lawyers than the marching arts? Or is there some other genre of performance groups involved that is not mentioned specifically in this letter? (Evidently, one that pays enormous sums of money for lighting, and generates surpluses of over $150,000/year.)

- Again, notice how the melodrama about depriving "songwriters of their ability to make a living" once again excludes mention of publishers, and their agents like Tresona.

When this happens, it is disappointing and begs the question: How can the community as a whole promote participation in the arts and suggest to students that a career in music is viable if it doesnt support the foundation of the entire music ecosystem - the songs and the songwriters?

... and the publishers, and the agencies like Tresona who profit from them?

Oh, to answer that question - two suggestions for supporting the entire ecosystem:

- Teach and promote copyright compliance. Principles should be covered in K-12; any performance arts degree should require an in-depth course; continuing education programs should include ethics and updates on developing legal/technological issues.

- Reform copyright law accoring to the kind of ideals espoused in this preachy letter. Copyright is intended for creators, not their heirs in perpetuity. The product of your grandfather's intellect is not your intellectual property. Fix the most favored nations loophole, so that participation in the arts can be promoted to students using video.

Of course, Tresona could be part of these solutions. Asking this question and leaving it unanswered shows that they are more interested in manipulating the reader and defending their position in the profit chain, not solving the problems.

[mingusmonk]

I received this letter too and have used Tresona for the past few years for licensing (arranging fees for Marching Band)

I have concerns about this statement in the letter:

"The licensing of custom arrangements, which is required by the U.S. Copyright Act, is often one of the smallest line items in the budget of many ensemble programs."

I would hardly call paying close to $2000 a season in arranging licensing fees one of the smallest line items in my budget. But, that may be just my school. Maybe other schools have more money in their budget. But, to make that blanket statement ("many ensemble programs") is naive and frankly incorrect in my opinion.

But in the case of large touring organizations like DCI drum corps, $2,000 for arrangement rights isn't much.

On the other hand, the dollars to arrange for drum corps, or independent WGI lines, etc really has nothing to do with nothing. Everyone here as a regular to DCP knows this is about recording and distribution $$$ ... not arranging. That point of the letter, in regards to our activity, is a fallacy.

[mingusmonk]

SNIPPED a blow-by-blow response.

I was copying an pasting and working up something similar. I just deleted it. Great job.

Also of note, organizations that can afford and hire lawyers to obtain fair and proper results from Tresona are doing so because Tresona's foundation is lawyers. It seems odd that they would disparage their own leadership.

[leed17]

But in the case of large touring organizations like DCI drum corps, $2,000 for arrangement rights isn't much.

On the other hand, the dollars to arrange for drum corps, or independent WGI lines, etc really has nothing to do with nothing. Everyone here as a regular to DCP knows this is about recording and distribution $$$ ... not arranging. That point of the letter, in regards to our activity, is a fallacy.

Agreed.

I really wish we could find out what the heck exactly happened at Midwest Clinic two years ago that caused all of this mess. While there were a few issues over the years regarding edits on the DCI vids, the Fan Network was still humming along nicely, we were getting audio downloads all summer, getting on-demand vids and live shows all summer. BOA was producing videos with Mr. Video, other marching band circuits were producing videos, WGI was doing vids, etc. And then all of a sudden everything comes to a screeching halt. Why? Give us specifics, don't just say the laws were reinterpreted. Tell us exactly what changed, and why.

I know that won't ever happen, but it just doesn't make Tresona or the other organizations like DCI, WGI, BOA, etc. look good right now. There are two sides to every story - I just wish we knew the truth on both sides :)

I fear an even larger war is going to come, causing DCI to lose even its DCI Live platform, and their Cinema projects. Anyone noticed that the Cinema shows for 2016 have not been announced recently by DCI? No info is on their website, and on their facebook page a fan asked about it and got the "there is no information at this time" response.

This is ashame - I hope that cooler heads prevail and this settles out of court and things can get back to normal in some way.

[mingusmonk]

Returning for an additional thought.

There are copyright laws in place. Right now, DCI and countless others are following those laws. If Tresona's potential customers are following the letter of the law, and Tresona is disappointed about the lack of agreements and money flowing their way (and to the downtrodden publishers, of course), then they might want to review their business model and pricing structure. This letter would seem to indicate that they might have overestimated the potential demand for their services.

[Everyfan]

In the interest of knowing more, it would be nice to know what kind of $$ amounts we are talking about. I understand one band director said almost $2,000 per season for arranging rights. What about sync rights that DCI pursues? Can a low budget high school appeal to Tresona or directly to the composer for a discount? It might be easier to see which side is being more rational if we had more information, though I expect that Tresona also has non-disclosure rules as well.

[Eleran]

it would be nice to know what kind of $$ amounts we are talking about .... What about sync rights that DCI pursues?

I have never been involved with sync rights, but I would imagine Tresona would tailor its fees to the expected volume/return of the media distributed (i.e. - "how many DVD's did you sell last year? How much did you net before sync fees? OK, then we want $X or X%"; "how many hits did you have on FanNetwork for each separate video? We want $X per hit, or X% of your revenues"). I could be wrong, however - hope someone can speak to this point.

And as for high schools, I would not think sync rights are that big an issue or something most would even consider pursuing - I don't know of many high schools who look to produce DVDs for profit. USBands and BOA, on the other hand, would probably LIKE to offer them for sale at big competitions (like they used to) but probably won't bother until pricing is more reasonable.

[totaleefree]

"Most performance ensembles obtain the necessary licenses; however, there are some ensembles and organizations which refuse to do so. The abuse of the system by these groups for illicit financial gain has been shocking. There are large enterprises with ensembles that travel all over the country performing at both nonprofit and for-profit events. They pay enormous sums of money for choreographers, arrangers, contest entry, lighting, costumes, props and a host of other outside services. Despite having budgets of more than $500,000/year and generating surpluses of over $150,000/year, these organizations refuse to get the licenses they need and compensate songwriters for their songs."

I believe that DCI in its marketing creates this impression that the corps are well funded profitable enterprises. In order to show how much better marching a corps is than high school or college marching band. They advertise to parents that they have the best instructors and best arrangers . On this site every year there are one or two threads where someone says that instead of becoming a school music instructor making 35k a year they are going to be drill writer or corps arranger because they heard that some arranger somewhere in the mid-west made 200k last year just writing drill and arrangements for marching band and drum Corps. They also hear somewhere that corps staff members make six figure pay. (While a few of the top corps directors may do that the vast majority of corps are run largely by volunteers) Some people at Tresona and other publishing and intellectual property protection agencies hear and believes these myths and think that there is a big pot of gold somewhere in the drum corps world, If all the staffers make 6 figures they can spare more for the original rights holders.

Edited April 15, 2016 by totaleefree

[cowtown]

Interesting. I see a bit of collective punishment for past and current sins, exhortations, an implication that one should forfeit their legal rights then of course, the starving artist, poor little victims of those mean, nasty Arts organizations.

Such insulting hubris

Guessing whomever received this letter already knows the score and isn't buying their butthurt bullying

I can’t find much on Tresona, revenues, growth, staff size, competition, alternatives etc. anyone?

More curious about their agreements with the artist; are they exclusive or with their clients; is there a guarantee against future liabilities or changing laws?

I feel time is against them, Patent trolls have recently come under the gun and some encouraging legislation is in the pipe, just a start but a start but it is coming (google Patent Trolls under News for examples)

Perhaps knee cap them with a push to Public Domain /Original and free use while waiting it out until the courts catch up and get a better fix. An across the board Arts org effort to boycott such a predatory middle man company. Do you really need to play that piece this year?

[Eleran]

I can’t find much on Tresona, revenues, growth, staff size, competition, alternatives etc. anyone?

More curious about their agreements with the artist; are they exclusive or with their clients; is there a guarantee against future liabilities or changing laws?

Their LinkedIn profiled says "1-10 employees". I doubt they have direct connection with very many artists - I believe they operate for the most part as agents for the big publishers, who control most artists' (and their descendants') copyrights.