Show Choir wins a round over Tresona - How could this impact DCI?

[Lance]

"All these copyright violators could have easily paid for the music they’re using -- for less than their costume budget each year!"

Is this claim categorically true, or just true about the particular pieces of music in question?

[JAZZER]

Same can be said for marching bands at all levels, as well as in parts of DCI as well.

Do you believe public institutions/entities get a "both eyes closed" blind eye versus non-public entities? btw, what parts of DCI? I would think the whole would be under consideration versus a part.

I wish all who are entitled to their property to remain control as well as compensation.

[Kamarag]

I don't like much about the current swamp of licensing rights, nor the extraordinary length of copyrights, but the above statement I cannot agree with. John Mackey, for instance, composes music primarily for wind ensembles. Take away all the "public educational institutions" (i.e. elementary schools through college), and just how many wind ensembles remain across the country to actually pay Mackay any money for the work he put into those compositions? If schools don't have to pay, then he stops composing for schools, and schools no longer have music to play. Bad for all.

Actually, you can play John Mackey music, buy buying it. It's written for wind ensemble, so you're granted the liscence to perfrom it as-is. But when you want to arrange it for marching band, that's where seperate rights come into the picture. A band could absolutely play it as-is outside on the field with no issues.

[Eleran]

Actually, you can play John Mackey music, buy buying it. It's written for wind ensemble, so you're granted the liscence to perfrom it as-is. But when you want to arrange it for marching band, that's where seperate rights come into the picture. A band could absolutely play it as-is outside on the field with no issues.

Yes, but I was replying to the statement that " this music is being performed by a public educational institution and should have always been fair use."

Under that rationale, no school would need to purchase the written parts at all (which is accompanied by a performance license), but would be able to photocopy parts from a music library (or share them between directors) and play for free under the guise of fair use.

[Beckham]

They paid a third party company over $100,000 to arrange the songs in question?! Good lord show choir must be a big deal at that school. Even the best high school marching bands in the country don't pay more than $10,000 for music arrangements. And even that is extremely rare.

[Stu]

They paid a third party company over $100,000 to arrange the songs in question?! Good lord show choir must be a big deal at that school. Even the best high school marching bands in the country don't pay more than $10,000 for music arrangements. And even that is extremely rare.

A plethora of Music Educators with Masters and PHD Degrees fork out $10,000 - $100,000 each year for Copyright Permissions to be chic in their own little performance niche of show choir and marching band; while a third party called Squareplay Entertainment owned by this guy receives all that dough. Hmmmmm, I wonder who the 'smart' one is in these exchanges?

Edited December 27, 2016 by Stu

[Pete Freedman]

On 12/26/2016 at 11:39 PM, Beckham said:

They paid a third party company over $100,000 to arrange the songs in question?! Good lord show choir must be a big deal at that school. Even the best high school marching bands in the country don't pay more than $10,000 for music arrangements. And even that is extremely rare.

Hello.  I believe the $100,000 was everything they paid to that company over an unspecified period of time for music arranging.  Not necessarily just those tunes.  Still, it's a lot of money.

The fees are said to be increasing substantially since Tresona arrived on the scene and consolidated much of the market, although that's speculative.  In any event they can be several hundred dollars or more for a single tune.  Multiply that by all the concerts by all the bands/choirs in a given school, and then by 98,000 public schools in the U.S. and it could well be upwards of a billion or more per year, much of which may be unpaid. 

That's why a court case like this one could result in the amount actually collected by copyright holders either going up or down drastically, depending on the final interpretation of the education exemptions to Title 17.

 

[Pete Freedman]

The law is a war, and if you're not fighting you're losing.  If you're not even aware it's a war, then you're doomed.

I have realized that only one side of this debate gets any serious articulation: the copyright holder's side.  That's because while music educators would seem to be on the "schools don't have to pay" side, in fact teachers don't generally pay the fees personally, but they do personally collect the fees paid by other schools for their arrangements.  (They teach for this school, but arrange for that school, and that other one, and that one over there ...)

That may be why NAFSME's actual copyright page was written largely by copyright holder's associations, is both vague and contradictory, and ends up referring people to the Harry Fox agency.

In other words, the teachers themselves have feet planted on both sides of this, and their opinions seem to reflect their interests as they see them, which is not surprising.  This includes, I think, many people on DCP.  That's why these copyright threads are so interesting!

We have IMO never heard a clear legal argument from a qualified advocate for the taxpayers, school districts (not teachers) and parents.  Such an argument might claim that educational institutions don't owe copyright fees at all for the normal practices involved in teaching music, and for holding school concerts where the fees go to a non-profit destination.  Because that's what the law appears to say.

Without that voice, the result is the widespread belief that the education exemptions are to be construed so narrowly as to be non-existent in practice.  Obviously, if there is any negotiated right to be paid, then it will make up for whatever the exemptions took away from the copyright holders, rendering the exemptions pointless.  Congress does stupid things, for sure, but I'm not sure they really did that particular stupid thing.

For me, the telling quote from the OP's article, regarding Judge Wilson's decision, is the one below.

If this means what it appears to mean, Tresona may drop this case if they want to keep getting the fees they get now.

Quote

Further, Wilson found the copyright laws Carroll allegedly violated were not clearly established and that his actions were objectively reasonable and granted summary judgment in Carroll's favor on all counts.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Pete Freedman
My last line got stuck in the quote.

[Stu]

2 hours ago, Pete Freedman said:

The law is a war, and if you're not fighting you're losing.  If you're not even aware it's a war, then you're doomed.

I have realized that only one side of this debate gets any serious articulation: the copyright holder's side.  That's because while music educators would seem to be on the "schools don't have to pay" side, in fact teachers don't generally pay the fees personally, but they do personally collect the fees paid by other schools for their arrangements.  (They teach for this school, but arrange for that school, and that other one, and that one over there ...)

That may be why NAFSME's actual copyright page was written largely by copyright holder's associations, is both vague and contradictory, and ends up referring people to the Harry Fox agency.

In other words, the teachers themselves have feet planted on both sides of this, and their opinions seem to reflect their interests as they see them, which is not surprising.  This includes, I think, many people on DCP.  That's why these copyright threads are so interesting!

We have IMO never heard a clear legal argument from a qualified advocate for the taxpayers, school districts (not teachers) and parents.  Such an argument might claim that educational institutions don't owe copyright fees at all for the normal practices involved in teaching music, and for holding school concerts where the fees go to a non-profit destination.  Because that's what the law appears to say.

Without that voice, the result is the widespread belief that the education exemptions are to be construed so narrowly as to be non-existent in practice.  Obviously, if there is any negotiated right to be paid, then it will make up for whatever the exemptions took away from the copyright holders, rendering the exemptions pointless.  Congress does stupid things, for sure, but I'm not sure they really did that particular stupid thing.

For me, the telling quote from the OP's article, regarding Judge Wilson's decision, is the one below.

If this means what it appears to mean, Tresona may drop this case if they want to keep getting the fees they get now.

The educational exception within Copyright Law is certainly there for band directors if they will stay within the realm of 'classroom teaching'. However, arranging Copyrighted materials where money transactions occur as well as performing those arrangements where Tickets and DVDs are sold at contests, especially at high-priced venues like BOA Grand Nationals, well.. that is not even close to the spirit of the educational exemption.

[Kamarag]

14 hours ago, Stu said:

The educational exception within Copyright Law is certainly there for band directors if they will stay within the realm of 'classroom teaching'. However, arranging Copyrighted materials where money transactions occur as well as performing those arrangements where Tickets and DVDs are sold at contests, especially at high-priced venues like BOA Grand Nationals, well.. that is not even close to the spirit of the educational exemption.

 

Monetary transactions don't even need to occur for there to be a violation.