Be Careful

[cybersnyder]

The heavy handed DMCA/DCI police it what turns me off on drum corps. If you're posting recordings of performances, that's copyright infringement. If you're posting parking lot clips, that to me, falls under fair use. Unfortunately the Supreme Court ruled that it's up to the defendant to prove that their infringement falls under fair use. That effectively wipes out the principle of fair use for all but those that have very, very deep pocket. So my response is simple, I will purchase no DVDs. I bought the Fan Network this year, but it will probably be the last time.

Don't be too upset with U-2be. Under the DMCA they have a safe harbor provision that protects them against lawsuits however they must react to DMCA infringement complaints that must be submitted under the penalty of perjury. If they don't react, they can be sued.

[84BDsop]

The heavy handed DMCA/DCI police it what turns me off on drum corps. If you're posting recordings of performances, that's copyright infringement. If you're posting parking lot clips, that to me, falls under fair use. Unfortunately the Supreme Court ruled that it's up to the defendant to prove that their infringement falls under fair use. That effectively wipes out the principle of fair use for all but those that have very, very deep pocket. So my response is simple, I will purchase no DVDs. I bought the Fan Network this year, but it will probably be the last time.

Don't be too upset with U-2be. Under the DMCA they have a safe harbor provision that protects them against lawsuits however they must react to DMCA infringement complaints that must be submitted under the penalty of perjury. If they don't react, they can be sued.

DCI has to follow the law, no?

Yes, it's inconsistent, which is probably why they're concentrating on the more recent (and better quality) stuff.

You can #####, ####, and moan about it all you want....but the law is the law, and DCI is obligated to follow it.

[PRAng]

Sigh. No, it's not yours unless you keep it totally to yourself and are using it for personal purposes like studying it for future ideas. Even then the videotaping of it is not always legal in the first place. If the show announces prohibitions of videotaping equipment, then you already crossed a legal line.

The show design is the ensemble's, and the music is held by a music publishing house and/or composer's legal entities and is used with permission by the ensemble. Here's a close analogy: you go to a movie theater and take a video of whatever recent film is playing. You post it on the website-not-to-be-named. You're illegally transmitting copyrighted material that has its own huge set of legal constraints.

Whether or not we think it's right or logical doesn't matter. It's the law.

I think it's time high school curricula included a course every year that addressed these legal issues so people understand it before they wind up on the nasty end of this legal sticky wicket.

I love this thread right now and this post in particular.

Finally some voices of reason as opposed to simply the voices of "entitlement".

Thank you!

[cybersnyder]

DCI has to follow the law, no?

Yes, it's inconsistent, which is probably why they're concentrating on the more recent (and better quality) stuff.

You can #####, ####, and moan about it all you want....but the law is the law, and DCI is obligated to follow it.

IMHO, DCI is going beyond copyright enforcement and suppressing fair use. I didn't see anywhere in my post where I "#####, ####, or moaned". I'm just stating my opinion. DCI can do what they want and I will react in the manner I see fit.

[Peel Paint]

The heavy handed DMCA/DCI police it what turns me off on drum corps. If you're posting recordings of performances, that's copyright infringement. If you're posting parking lot clips, that to me, falls under fair use. Unfortunately the Supreme Court ruled that it's up to the defendant to prove that their infringement falls under fair use. That effectively wipes out the principle of fair use for all but those that have very, very deep pocket. So my response is simple, I will purchase no DVDs. I bought the Fan Network this year, but it will probably be the last time.

I really don't think the main reason DCI or corps enforce their rights with the website in question by asking to have material taken down is to force you to buy the media from DCI so DCI gets their cut. It may be a side reason, but I don't think it's the main reason, because what's posted really isn't competitive with the much higher-quality media product DCI sells, in most cases.

I believe the main reason DCI and the corps want improperly posted videos taken down is so that DCI and the corps can continue to get access to that work. Creators want to get paid for their work, and if they think DCI is part of a system in which they get cheated, they may stop giving corps access to that work.

[84BDsop]

IMHO, DCI is going beyond copyright enforcement and suppressing fair use.

I didn't see anywhere in my post where I "#####, ####, or moaned". I'm just stating my opinion. DCI can do what they want and I will react in the manner I see fit.

That was more in response to this type of thread than anything else...this is, I think, the 3rd time this exact type of thread has come up this year alone....with the same responses from those in the know and the same sense of entitlement from those who don't care.

if DVI doesn't show some effort to protect composer works, there will be a LOT less music available. There's a list out there (I forget what company has it) thay lists compoisitions that will not be allowed at all....and ask anyone from 89 Cavies about one of the pieces they had to hose or get sued by the composer.

[cybersnyder]

I really don't think the main reason DCI or corps enforce their rights with the website in question by asking to have material taken down is to force you to buy the media from DCI so DCI gets their cut. It may be a side reason, but I don't think it's the main reason, because what's posted really isn't competitive with the much higher-quality media product DCI sells, in most cases.

I believe the main reason DCI and the corps want improperly posted videos taken down is so that DCI and the corps can continue to get access to that work. Creators want to get paid for their work, and if they think DCI is part of a system in which they get cheated, they may stop giving corps access to that work.

Creators are usually paid through ASCAP, BMI or a handful of other licensing agreements. Bands (the four piece guitar, bass and drums variety) perform copyrighted works (covers) at bars or venues and the venue must have a license for public performance of the copyrighted works. Recently BMI and ASCAP have been going after venues and that has caused some to stop having live bands perform. There's been a lot of discussion on this on the guitar forums. I'm not sure if DCI would have the agreement with these organizations or if they would need to ensure that the venue where the performances occur would need to have purchased the performance licenses. It could be as part of this agreement that there is a provision for any recordings of the performances. I'm not sure and I am unable to find a statement on dci.org regarding this. I completely understand them going after performance recordings, but when they go after parking lot warm-ups -- that's when they lose me.

[cybersnyder]

That was more in response to this type of thread than anything else...this is, I think, the 3rd time this exact type of thread has come up this year alone....with the same responses from those in the know and the same sense of entitlement from those who don't care.

if DVI doesn't show some effort to protect composer works, there will be a LOT less music available. There's a list out there (I forget what company has it) thay lists compoisitions that will not be allowed at all....and ask anyone from 89 Cavies about one of the pieces they had to hose or get sued by the composer.

"Entitlement"? Hardly. I just don't like to roll over and give up the principle of fair use.

'89 Cavaliers would be an issue where the Cavaliers didn't do their proper legal work when putting together a show, not a case where they posted a warm up on the 'Tube.

[octavia9299]

Creators are usually paid through ASCAP, BMI or a handful of other licensing agreements. Bands (the four piece guitar, bass and drums variety) perform copyrighted works (covers) at bars or venues and the venue must have a license for public performance of the copyrighted works. Recently BMI and ASCAP have been going after venues and that has caused some to stop having live bands perform. There's been a lot of discussion on this on the guitar forums. I'm not sure if DCI would have the agreement with these organizations or if they would need to ensure that the venue where the performances occur would need to have purchased the performance licenses. It could be as part of this agreement that there is a provision for any recordings of the performances. I'm not sure and I am unable to find a statement on dci.org regarding this. I completely understand them going after performance recordings, but when they go after parking lot warm-ups -- that's when they lose me.

i'd hazard a guess that for the legal definition of "performance," it doesn't matter WHERE the playing of the competition is done, parking lot or field.

[cybersnyder]

Honestly, I think the bigger issue is with an IP system that was created long before the Internet and the burden of defining "fair use" is placed on the little guy who has no legal power against mega corporations.