Less West Side Story in the future?

[AlexL]

That's beautifully poetic. However, the law disagrees.

The law has been changed many times due to the influence of corporations that stood to benefit from copyrights being extended.

[whitedawn]

The law has been changed many times due to the influence of corporations that stood to benefit from copyrights being extended.

eh... people who write music for a living need to put food on the table, too. music is great and swell and all, but at the end of the day, it is a product in most cases.

[TrumpetJ]

I gotta say, I'm one of the people who thinks will do good for the marching world. I enjoyed what corps did with WSS, but I was on the verge of breaking things from the amount of high schools I saw do a WSS show. Bernstein is a tired concept on the football field. Let the old man rest.

[SynthLine09]

eh... people who write music for a living need to put food on the table, too. music is great and swell and all, but at the end of the day, it is a product in most cases.

Right, limiting the number of times your music can be played is going to make you tons of money

[Triple Forte]

this is why you will see more and more original music

I really hope this doesn't happen......but I am afraid you might be right.

As far as original drum corps music is concerned.......I think most of the original music we have heard is average at best. Average is actually a stretch (IMO).

Anyone can write music......very few can write good music....and great music....is fairly rare....

[jmdigmon]

First, I am not a lawyer.

Second, The Copyright Act of 1976 is in Title 17 of the United States Code (17 U.S.C. § 101, et. seq.).

The provisions relating to music arrangement are not terribly explicit. In most all cases related to marching band, DCI, WGI percussion units, and similar groups, permission to arrange comes from the copyright holder, which is usually not the artist/composer/composer's estate. The copyright holder is usually a publishing house of some sort (e.g. Hal Leonard). From grants of permission to arrange (usually based on a one-time fee for a set use and period of time), the publisher may disperse a negotiated amount to the composer, et al. The "permission to arrange" license is a contract between the copyright holder and the arranger/performing ensemble. Licenses for making audio recordings and video recordings are separate and negotiable (and required if you plan to do so).

If anyone else is more in the know, feel free to add.

This is for anyone's education alone.

[chaddyt]

Eh.

While I think limiting a corps' (or marching band for that matter) access to arranging great music is a bit crap, I think that this will start to force corps to find other, more creative routes to show concept/programming. Bernstein's done a lot of stuff and his stuff has been done many times over, in one form or another. While I loved the Cadets' show this year, I personally felt a more fitting tribute to their 75th might have been something truly original.

There is a finite amount of music out there, but the available repertoire is still pretty #### vast. Lets try to find and use some of that un-tapped, never-before-heard-on-the-football-field stuff and get creative with it, making it into something that becomes yet another classic.

IMO

[scottgordon]

I think that this will start to force corps to find other, more creative routes to show concept/programming.

Or they could simply utilize the melody, harmony, and have a definite beginning and end.

Lets try to find and use some of that un-tapped, never-before-heard-on-the-football-field stuff and get creative with it, making it into something that becomes yet another classic.

You mean like these? http://www.hardbat.com/NeverDone.html

[3rd_Star_Brigade]

An heir has the rights to the fruits of his/her ancestor's labors, if that ancestor chooses to will the residuals on.

I'm sure the daughter of the guy who owns my fencing club would be thrilled to hear you think she doesn't deserve the residuals from his acting career if something happens to him, in spite of his wishes.

Creating music is a creative process almost identical to creating a new bit of profitable tech....the only difference being in the nature of the item being created. Music doesn't just come out of thin air....someone has to sit down and write it out and (hopefully) eventually get paid for it....it IS a commodity, and thus the heirs have rights to the profits from that commodity when the time comes. the only real argument is for how long to assign those rights to the heirs. 70 years seems a bit long, unless you consider those rights supporting a child who lost a parent at a young age....70 years of residuals could go along way......unless you want to tell that child "sorry kid....heirs get no money....sucks to be you."

We are not talking about a business here, or pop music business, etc.

We are talking about art. Next time you go to a public art museum, imagine the curator being told that the portrait may not be displayed because the color and motif of the surrounding area was not in the artist's original intent and is now going to be confiscated because of a decree by the artist's heir.

Ludicrous. The artist would not have cared if someone had arranged his most popular themes differently! He would have been proud of the vast popularity it gave his name and his inner voice. Besides, joe shmo bernstein is probably making a ton more if he lets people use their arrangements any way they want. In no way is that dirtying the art that the original composer intended.

[MoonHill]

We are not talking about a business here, or pop music business, etc.

What? Yes you are. It's a huge business, and has been.

You want composers and composers' heirs to stop caring about how their music gets used by a drum corps? Then get DCI and the individual corps to stop selling DVDs and CDs featuring the fruits of the composers' labors.

We are talking about art. Next time you go to a public art museum, imagine the curator being told that the portrait may not be displayed because the color and motif of the surrounding area was not in the artist's original intent and is now going to be confiscated because of a decree by the artist's heir.

And you go to an art museum that is displaying works not either owned outright by the museum's trust or on explicit loan from the owner, and tell me how well that works out for you.

Ludicrous. The artist would not have cared if someone had arranged his most popular themes differently! He would have been proud of the vast popularity it gave his name and his inner voice. Besides, joe shmo bernstein is probably making a ton more if he lets people use their arrangements any way they want. In no way is that dirtying the art that the original composer intended.

And who the heck are you to decide what the composer/artist/writer/whatever would or would not want? Isn't that a determination for the actual artist to make, or failing him, the people he gave his copyright to? What right do you have to decide what's best for the art and the artist?

If an artist does not want someone to chop up their composition and use it as supporting music for a piece of neonazi propaganda or beastiality porn, are you really going to sit there and A)say that they have no right to complain because their art is intangible spiritual essence, B)say that they "wouldn't mind at all" if they were real artists, or C)Insist that they'll make more money anyway? If they've got a right to choose in that situation, then what about Drum Corps or Band obliterates that right?

And if music is an intangible spiritual essence that has always existed, then you go and apply your labor to capturing it and then give it away for free. Let the people who feel like they actually created something keep their creations as they see fit.