jthomas666 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 ..then why is it we can watch canon 1,000+ time and every warmup we could imagine with J.D. every year EXCEPT this year?? Fishy....again, I'm saying it's crazy that simple stuff is being "protected" now, I can understand shutting down show leaks, but the horline? Battery? Guard stretching...lol. Come on. Canon was 5 years ago--today there would not be much of a demand for a DVD for warmups from that year. Right now, though...well, you've seen the posts. Right now, PR could finance next year's gas by dumping this year's guard gear on eBay. ;)As far as stretching exercises go, my guess is that PR doesn't have someone searching and watching every PR video on youtube or google. More than likely, they're just doing a search for 2008, and having that removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84BDsop Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 (edited) Can you point me to one single case where a performing group who has had a illegally recorded performance posted online has been sued by the source music owner? I recall Cavies getting into trouble with John Rutter about their use of Images D'Oblique in the89/90 timeframe....anyone from that era to confirm?? And just because some corps has NOT been sued into oblivion over it doesn't mean the possibility isn't there...DCI and DCA both REQUIRE you you show proof that permission has been granted for the use of your show music before they'll let you on the field....even a small startup that's only doing a handfull of local shows and would only get on you tube thorugh someone's camera phone. That's the REALITY....learn to deal with it. Edited August 13, 2008 by 84BDsop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinwiz Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 (edited) As far as stretching exercises go, my guess is that PR doesn't have someone searching and watching every PR video on youtube or google. More than likely, they're just doing a search for 2008, and having that removed. Which is WRONG. If you want to defend your copyrights, that's fine, but take the time to see that the information is actually copyrighted. Don't overprotect, don't take things down in a blanket fashion. This is what's causing problems in some people's minds. If you're fair about it, we'll be fair about it. [EDIT: And is Canon in G still copyrighted? Wouldn't it have passed into public domain now?] Edited August 13, 2008 by Pinwiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newseditor44 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Probably because the possibility of getting sued out of existence by the source music owner hasn't quite sunk in to those who ##### about it....no matter how many times or how clearly you explain it. What Sam said... It's understandable, but getting out of control. Unfortunately, it will never be resolved. I'm sure that ultimately the corps would love to see the material up on YouTube, but they just don't want the liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCIHasBeen Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Which is WRONG. If you want to defend your copyrights, that's fine, but take the time to see that the information is actually copyrighted. Don't overprotect, don't take things down in a blanket fashion. This is what's causing problems in some people's minds. If you're fair about it, we'll be fair about it.[EDIT: And is Canon in G still copyrighted? Wouldn't it have passed into public domain now?] Even if the material is public domain, the performance of it is not. Video/Audio rights to the performance are automatically the property of the creator, unless the rights had been previously sold or assigned to another party (such as DCI or ESPN.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieren Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 As far as I know, if a corps is warming up in a public place, they do not have the right to take that stuff down. Inside the show is different, but if something is done publicly it becomes public domain.... This is very, very wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newseditor44 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Which is WRONG. If you want to defend your copyrights, that's fine, but take the time to see that the information is actually copyrighted. Don't overprotect, don't take things down in a blanket fashion. This is what's causing problems in some people's minds. If you're fair about it, we'll be fair about it.[EDIT: And is Canon in G still copyrighted? Wouldn't it have passed into public domain now?] If you were the director of a non_profit that is barely scrapping by, would you want to risk it? It's CYA to the millionth degree, and it is totally understandable. There are other issues with video's from ive events that could cause potential legal issues, but I doubt any of those would be major concerns. If I were the attorneys for the corps and for DCI, I would have as many video's taken down as possible. Don't blame the corps or DCI, one major lawsuit could throw the entire activity in a huge financial tailspin... then you'll be #####ing that we didn't do enough to protect the activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieren Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Which is WRONG. If you want to defend your copyrights, that's fine, but take the time to see that the information is actually copyrighted. Don't overprotect, don't take things down in a blanket fashion. This is what's causing problems in some people's minds. If you're fair about it, we'll be fair about it.[EDIT: And is Canon in G still copyrighted? Wouldn't it have passed into public domain now?] What Phantom played was not canon...it was an arrangement made by a boy's choir arranger, and therefore copyrighted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieren Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I recall Cavies getting into trouble with John Rutter about their use of Images D'Oblique in the89/90 timeframe....anyone from that era to confirm??And just because some corps has NOT been sued into oblivion over it doesn't mean the possibility isn't there...DCI and DCA both REQUIRE you you show proof that permission has been granted for the use of your show music before they'll let you on the field....even a small startup that's only doing a handfull of local shows and would only get on you tube thorugh someone's camera phone. That's the REALITY....learn to deal with it. I don't think they had a problem with Rutter...he wrote "Gloria." I think the trouble was with using Maslanka's "Child's Garden of Dreams" without permission....which is why they had to replace it with "Images Diabolique." Any old timers here that can confirm or deny? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newseditor44 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I think one thing DCI might try and do tocapitalie on the demand is to post-produce the DVD's a bit quicker. As more time passes, I think the demand goes down (out of sight, out of mind). Getting the DVD's out quickly is going to help with the YouTube demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.