David J Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Nevermind,I was told that it's PR's media producer who removed the content. He is also doing SCV's tour dvd, I met him on tour. Ultimately, I would like the footage I got to help the corps. So, maybe I can talk to him and arrange a 'for-profit' mechanism to show the 3d footage I captured, so I can help raise money for the corps. I would love to do that. Hey Tim, When you talk to the guy, how about asking him and the corps to get off their collective butts and add content to the Fan Network site ? Maybe people like me that pay for the content will renew next year if more than just a couple of corps provide daily updates to the site. For the record, I like the Fan Network, but I also watch the YouTube stuff because it is more timely. It seemed to take forever to get some video of Regiments show. It would also help if the video and audio quality of the Fan Network was more than just slightly better than cell phone cameras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84BDsop Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 No corps would never be required to pay royalties based on someone posting clips of them on YouTube.They issue take-down requests because they fear it may detract from sales. Which it arguably could (although I personally don't think it does). The issue isn;t royalties from youtube postings....it's royalties and permission fees paid by teh corps and DCI to the publishers/composers/copyright holders that allow the corps to perform someone ELSE'S work in a public setting....youtube is a fairly new phenom and is pretty uncontrollable, although they WILL remove videos that violate copyright protections is they are made aware of the violation....hence Tim's vids getting pulled. In fairness, there are a TON of old corps vids out there...DCI and the corps appear to be more concerned with the more recent stuff and not prelims from 82 being posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_brandt Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 Hey Tim,When you talk to the guy, how about asking him and the corps to get off their collective butts and add content to the Fan Network site ? Maybe people like me that pay for the content will renew next year if more than just a couple of corps provide daily updates to the site. For the record, I like the Fan Network, but I also watch the YouTube stuff because it is more timely. It seemed to take forever to get some video of Regiments show. It would also help if the video and audio quality of the Fan Network was more than just slightly better than cell phone cameras. I agree, that it is a timeliness issue. We need a means for all of us to collectively post footage in real time to a shared site where the corps gets royalties for viewings. Perhaps the fan network needs a youtube-style upload site. I spoke with John Christensen, and I will be donating all my footage of the corps, for them to do as they wish. I am going to provide links to buy cheap 3d glasses. I will focus on getting good footage, and have faith that the corps will find a good means to monetize, provided they like any of my stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFarrell Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 It might be best to donate these to the actual corps. I know Phantom Regiment would be interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_brandt Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 It might be best to donate these to the actual corps. I know Phantom Regiment would be interested. Hey Tim. Yes, I spoke with John Christensen, and I will be donating all my footage to the corps. Love to help out in any way possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_brandt Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 Hey Tim.Yes, I spoke with John Christensen, and I will be donating all my footage to the corps. Love to help out in any way possible. This all reminds me that I need to finish rendering all the 3d footage I took, and put it on a dvd. Project for the weekend, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex M. Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 This doesn't make sense. If it is purely a copyright issue, and not a royalty issue, then wouldn't corps be concerned about any YouTube video out there? Why would ASCAP care what year the footage is? A violation is a violation, right? Policing this stuff has to be a bear. I can't believe no corps has tried to monetize on in-season drumline shots. Heck, give the power to the fans, and do like Tim. Corps can have fans submit video to the corps for posting on the Fan Network. I'm not a member of the FN, but I would EASILY throw down $70 for regular drumline footage. Alex M. The issue isn;t royalties from youtube postings....it's royalties and permission fees paid by teh corps and DCI to the publishers/composers/copyright holders that allow the corps to perform someone ELSE'S work in a public setting....youtube is a fairly new phenom and is pretty uncontrollable, although they WILL remove videos that violate copyright protections is they are made aware of the violation....hence Tim's vids getting pulled.In fairness, there are a TON of old corps vids out there...DCI and the corps appear to be more concerned with the more recent stuff and not prelims from 82 being posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwillis35 Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Actually, the more I think about it - with all the demand there is for random rehearsal / lot footage of drum corps, it would be cool to find a vehicle to monetize it, which would help the drum corps.Revenues from watching videos could help the 'fuel fund', immensely. I am going to explore this idea. This is not a bad idea, and I am glad you are going to pursue it. However, and as you already know, any footage that ANY of us take at a corps show, whether it be in the LOT, the Stadium, at a practice site, or wherever, is NOT ours. We do not own the copyrights nor are we paying to use those copyrights and the materials that come with it. The corps are paying to use their copyrighted material, and in doing so they have many rules they must follow in protecting those rights. I have always felt the the problem today with all this stems from ACCESS vs. SERVICE. We live in an age where access to all kinds of things, usually over the internet/web, is at our fingertips 24/7. We are used to that. But certain kinds of content are valuable in a much different way, like artist creations (movies, music, art, poetry, books, etc.), or like productivity applications and services like software, hardware, consulting, and even learning services. These things all command a value and the owner of these things has a right to protect the value and the quality of the product which bears his/her name. It used to be that the arts, like music and movies, could only be purchased in stores, therefore the middle man was the physical store that sold these products, and the price reflected the value and included the proportions to pay artist, copyright owner, legal fees, producer, marketer, and other fees. Now days this "art" can be downloaded, copied, given away, posted in various places, burned to CD or DVD, and even illegally used in other projects. For a long time, during the 1st Napster run, this kind of thing ran amuck. Apple negotiated with the 5 major record labels to do it the right way and we got iTunes. But people mocked it because it was too expensive, too many rules about how many downloads and how many machines and iPods the music could be put onto (even though Apple was trying to set the course for a more legal and better way of doing it, one that would be supported by the record companies). I personally like that all the DRM (Digital Rights Managements) code is put into each movie, TV show, music video, or song that you download, because I want this to be fair to the artists and the companies that represent them, and I need to value their creation and not take advantage of it. DCI has a difficult time as it is when they negotiate for the use of various musical selections that corps will use. Once this is done each corps is paying a fee, sometimes throughout the summer, for the rights to arrange and perform such music. I highly doubt that in those negotiations they include an agreement for all the material that gets stolen via the parking lot, at the practice field, and even at the stadium in performance. DCI knows it happens, but at some point they will be forced to control this even more. The economy, and certainly DCI's economic infrastructure, is much better off when we pay for artist creations and services that bring a value to the activity. They can't just give things away for free, and they can't gobble up heaps of revenue from advertisers in order to pay for these services so you can have your free content. We're not a big enough market for that, and even the giant of this world, GOOGLE, has been severely criticized by Wall Street for not selling more of their services, especially now as their profits flat-line. Their stock has been steadily going down because of this, and this past Quarter's financial announcement was sharply criticized by stock speculators. I guess my point is that we have to stop expecting everything to be free. I think the young generation today has gotten used to this because for years this is how the software/internet services sector has operated. But that day is coming to an end because advertisers are not seeing the profits that the companies they represent had hoped to see. DCI's economic structure will thrive as long as we all contribute fairly and honestly, paying for products and services that deserve to be paid for. This means respecting content that is not ours and not created by us, and often times it means paying for content that the corps themselves had to pay for in order to use. JW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caliquads Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 A big reason why corps don't want to have their lot footage on the net is competition. Phantom "I wonder why BD beat us in drums tonight, lets go watch their lot footage on youtube." DCI and the corps will never get in legal trouble for having lot videos posted on youtube. You can play anyone's music without permission live. That's just a fact. You can even make money off the live performance of someone elses music without permission.(cover band anyone?) Its the corps pulling stuff from youtube, not BMI. The place you get into legal hot water is when you take recordings of someones music and make money off the sales of said content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomnoise Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Actually, no. Although you can perform the song, you have to negotiate the rights to make a video of the music (Sync Rights). In addition, you have to pay arranging rights for anything you perform. And then you pay mechanicals for the stuff you put on a CD. In recent years, there has been a crack down by the owners of the music. Used to be, no one cared. Not any more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.958e2fc0f33eedcbcf5be17a60a6a1b0.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.