MoonHill 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? Posted online? Not a performance group, but there's certainly precedence. Without that qualifier? Oh yeah. Edited August 13, 2008 by MoonHill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyWonder1911 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Are you sure its copyright protected even though they are all non-profit corporations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Personally, I think that any corps that has media that they can legally allow on that "you" site should keep it on there! The Cavaliers became extremely popular among the marching band folks around the same time that they were the only corps who had shows on KaZaA (who doesn't remember downloading Niagara Falls and the press box cam of Four Corners 1000 times like 6 years ago), and I think that's a huge factor behind some of their successes today. And here I thought it was Fiedler, Saucedo, Gaines, Kuhn, MacIntosh, (add corps rosters here)....but no - the Cavaliers owe their success to Kazaa! (/hyperbole) Personally, I think the corps ought to decide what material they're going to give away, and what material they're going to draw revenue from. Looking at the 2008 evolution of the DCI Fan Network, that seems to be exactly what corps are doing now. You can't please everyone, though. Wasn't half of DCP complaining that DCI and their corps weren't making this type of content available before? Now that they are, the other half of DCP will complain that they can't get it for free anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 (edited) Are you sure its copyright protected even though they are all non-profit corporations? Being non-profit has nothing to do with it. And let's not forget that even non-profit Drum Corps make money from their performances which add a layer of complexity to getting copyright IIRC. LOL, I belong to a Lutheran church (definitely non-profit) and the bulletins used for services have copyright notices for the hymns and litergy. So even churches have to do the copyright CYA drill. And to Jason (newseditor44) for: "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" To that I add, each person has a resonsiblity to protect the activity too, IOW don't post links or vids if you don't know if it is legal to do so. To think I wanted to do something important for post #7000... this is it. Edited August 13, 2008 by JimF-3rdBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristan Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Reading this just reminds me how little people know about copyright law. To those complaining: there is some good advice given in this thread--read it, and read up on copyright law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouooga Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 And here I thought it was Fiedler, Saucedo, Gaines, Kuhn, MacIntosh, (add corps rosters here)....but no - the Cavaliers owe their success to Kazaa! Ha, ya, I think I misspoke. I meant that a huge reason they have been successful among fans has to do with their name and shows getting out there to the public. On the field it had everything to do the designers, but great design or mediocre design, a huge portion of their younger fans always felt like (to me) people jumping on the bandwagon, and if the Cavaliers are the corps they've seen the most then that's who they're going to praise. Keep in mind, I'm specifically talking about an underexposed marching band population as a part of their fan base - not the entire fan base by any means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 (edited) It is their right and many other corps have been much more vigilant in the past but I still have to question DCI and all of it’s corps. Why would you take down bad quality free publicity for all of the high school kids that you say is one of your major targets? They are either going to buy the high quality DVDs or not but it will not be based on how many times they watch YouTube.And, I (the longtime fan that is not in your target market) am going to buy all the expensive DVDs and watch as many YouTube videos as I can find. What people need to realize is, copyright law isn't just for the protection of profit for a given copyright holder (though that is mostly how the law is enforced). Copyright law is also there to enable the copyright owner to be able to decide how his/her work will be distributed, regardless of whether profit is involved. That means that no matter how magnanimous we may think we're being by sharing a copyrighted work, copyright law means we don't get to make that decision. The copyright holder does. And whatever the copyright holder decides goes, whether we like it or not, because the law protects his/her right to make that decision. The same holds true for any entity like DCI or individual corps who own the copyright to fixed-form audio and video media capturing their public performances. Edited August 13, 2008 by byline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Are you sure its copyright protected even though they are all non-profit corporations? Copyright has nothing to do with non-profit status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jthomas666 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 [EDIT: And is Canon in G still copyrighted? Wouldn't it have passed into public domain now?]Technically, the piece was "Sanctus", based on the Canon in G. It's fairly new, so is still under copyright.The thing about copyrights--the thing that tends to make people twitchy about them--is that in many cases, not defending the copyright can result in forfeiture of the copyright. And that goes not just for the performance, or the work being performed, but also logos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 The thing about copyrights--the thing that tends to make people twitchy about them--is that in many cases, not defending the copyright can result in forfeiture of the copyright. And that goes not just for the performance, or the work being performed, but also logos. Interesting, I always thought of logos in terms of trademark, not copyright, but apparently they can be covered by both: Trademark and copyright protection Just to further confuse the issue! 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.