Pirated finals videos

[corps-mudgeon]

And this, my friend, is exactly the point of my original post.

And here I thought you just wanted to know which way the seats were numbered!

[The Other Mike]

And here I thought you just wanted to know which way the seats were numbered!

BAHAHAHA

[garfield]

And here I thought you just wanted to know which way the seats were numbered!

Well, that, too!

[trionbd]

And I fully disagree with your second paragraph. I've been to over 10 finals as a Platinum Friends member, and over 10 before that at the Gold level. I *AM* the guy buying the best seats in the house. And in that many years I've never seen a person sitting in the Friend's Block - not a single one! - that recorded the show. Granted, it's impossible for me to see All of the people on the 50. But your connotation that "spending more on the activity" buys a pass for illegal behavior doesn't fly.

For information purposes - and it probably doesn't have a thing to prove a point - but, by a fluke of stupidity in 2009 I didn't order my tickets on time and ended up sitting on the 35. THIS is where I saw the video-taker. I will easily concede this point as unrelated to the central discussion of your point, but the coincidence does suggest the other side of the discussion:

Fans who DON'T spend to buy the best seats in the house are more likely to illegally video the show than those who pay top buck.

(Don't flame me - I reject this poster's entire point and this is only the other side of his argument.)

I am the die-hard fan. I spend LOTS of money on the activity. I have a full compliment of drum corps media in my study, including my recently purchased Legacy collection (!).

And I would NEVER, EVER consider video-taping a show.

I seriously doubt, and hereby challenge, your contention that "most" of us are the ones breaking the DCI rules and law.

Your justification is weak, at best.

Ok...here's the deal. I think it's great that you and others are in a finacial situation that allow you to pay for the high dollar ticket packages (although I'm not sure that all of the chest thumping was necessary). I also think it's great that you have your own drum corps library. I hope to be able to purchase the entire legacy collection myself one day. I understand that I probably didn't do myself any great service by bringing money up to begin with. But I'm not making an argument about who spends more money on activity. I was using that as an illustration that the people you are so disgusted with and look at with total disdain have an equal love for the activity as you. Does that mean that to be a hard core fan you have to be recording bootlegs at every performance you attend? Well obviously not. I never said that.

I do stand corrected by you on the following point (although I was only painting a picture with the previous description of the people recording at shows). The people recording are mostly from the teenager through mid 20's demographic. They are recent former members of a corps, or are desparately hoping to march somewhere soon, or are very disappointed that they never were able to march. You're right in saying that you won't see them on the 50 because this age group doesn't typically have the finacial ablilty to pay the money for those seats. They are relegated to the 35 because that's where their wallet allows them to sit. But these are the fans that are, on average, the most engaged with what's going on with the activity, and they totally live for drum corps.

On the 50 yard line you see the people who are in an age bracket that is much more removed from marching age. They aren't so much into the 24/7 obsession with drum corps like they were in their youth. They are not totally hyped up to listen to the show they just attended and therefore they have no need to even contemplate making such a recording. But many of them were in that frame of mind at one time in their life. They love drum corps, but not like they did when they were 20.

I could write all day about why I don't think it is as bad as what you say, but in my first post I was only responding to your original question of what you should've done in the case of the video camera guy at finals. So here it goes once again...

The point isn't whether you would record at a show. The point is your stance on those who do and to that I say this. No matter what stance you take on the copyright issue, you'd have to be a totally cold hearted, ruthless person to seriously contemplate confronting someone in the middle of Finals night, or going to get someone to get in trouble with the authorities...JUST BECAUSE THAT PERSON CAN'T GET ENOUGH DRUM CORPS. Wouldn't you?

[perc2100]

The point isn't whether you would record at a show. The point is your stance on those who do and to that I say this. No matter what stance you take on the copyright issue, you'd have to be a totally cold hearted, ruthless person to seriously contemplate confronting someone in the middle of Finals night, or going to get someone to get in trouble with the authorities...JUST BECAUSE THAT PERSON CAN'T GET ENOUGH DRUM CORPS. Wouldn't you?

I don't think so. You're saying it's cold hearted if a person decides they can't in good conscience let someone knowingly break a rule that could a) get DCI and it's member corps in trouble with copyright holders (for example, if Holsinger sees his music freely distributed on youtube, it's possible that he could become angry that DCI is not policing it's activity well enough and then revoke his permission to let corps arrange his music). Remember that many times a copyright holder of a piece of music isn't necessarily the composer, who may be supportive of the music education aspect of the activity: the copyright is held by a publishing company, who's top concern is profit and legal issues. Or b) cost DCI financially. This is especially disconcerting if we are talking about Saturday night Finals performances: the performances that are DCI's bread and butter when it comes to merchandising revenue.

There was a time when I couldn't get enough drum corps either. Finals CD's were released around Thanksgiving, and videos were released shortly after. From June (when the season started) until Thanksgiving I had to either rely on my memory to enjoy favorite shows of the year, or I would get lucky if DCI or corps released pre-season recordings of their show (Cadets and Blue Devils did that in the mid/late 90's). Now-a-days, for just $60 (maybe cheaper, I can't remember), if a fan can't get enough of drum corps just from viewing live shows, they can purchase DCI's Fan Network subscription. According to the Fan Network, there are over 200 video recordings from the 2009 season. You can literally watch the evolution of corps' shows from early season to the weekend before Finals. Plus, if you wait to subscribe until after Finals, the price drops significantly (it's currently $39 to subscribe now). Not only do you get over 200 2009 performances, you get videos produced by member corps. You also get every available (from DCI) Finals performances to stream anytime you want.

You really can't beat that, and if you're a fan that "can't get enough of drum corps," there is no reason why you can't drop $40 to enjoy your favorite 2009 shows LEGALLY, and, conversely, actually BENEFIT DCI and your favorite corps.

You can float that "I can't get enough of drum corps and I MUST have more of it" excuse when talking about the early 90's or previously. But with the magic of technology that DCI has embraced, that argument holds no water and is not valid. If money is an issue and you can't afford the $39 subscription, then poverty does not make for a legit reason to break copyright laws, stadium/DCI policy, and risk of hurting your favorite corps/DCI.

Edited February 18, 2010 by perc2100

[liebot]

I don't think so. You're saying it's cold hearted if a person decides they can't in good conscience let someone knowingly break a rule that could a) get DCI and it's member corps in trouble with copyright holders (for example, if Holsinger sees his music freely distributed on youtube, it's possible that he could become angry that DCI is not policing it's activity well enough and then revoke his permission to let corps arrange his music). Remember that many times a copyright holder of a piece of music isn't necessarily the composer, who may be supportive of the music education aspect of the activity: the copyright is held by a publishing company, who's top concern is profit and legal issues. Or b) cost DCI financially. This is especially disconcerting if we are talking about Saturday night Finals performances: the performances that are DCI's bread and butter when it comes to merchandising revenue.

If people were policing YouTube as much as you say they are, the Blue Devils would have been in the poorhouse years ago for the recordings of music from the new Star Wars trilogy they have all over YouTube. This is John Williams we're talking about here. If anybody could've made a pretty penny off of charging for rights, it'd be him (and he'd be unwilling to grant the rights, anyway). They played those tunes in warm-up without getting arrangement or performance rights, and they've seen no repercussions (as far as I know). Frankly, I don't think videos on YouTube are going to get any corps in trouble. It's much more likely that we'd see a situation like Phantom 08 where a composer retroactively denies the rights he had previously granted and the finals video has to be edited.

Furthermore, considering the number of YouTube videos there are of big-name orchestras performing famous pieces ostensibly without having paid for the rights to distribute, I don't think DCI is high on the ladder of things to crack down on for these people.

[Achilles]

Food for thought

"The Grateful Dead was famous for letting their fans tape their live shows. I remember being on a flight to Vegas from Seattle with a planeload of Deadheads and the guy next to me had a suitcase full of live concert tapes that he had recorded with each tape meticulously labeled with the concert date and location.

The Dead recognized that allowing fans to record for free widened their audience and the band became one of the most profitable groups in history. The band's lyricist, John Perry Barlow, went on to become an Internet guru.

Barlow wrote in Wired in 1994 that in the information economy, "the best way to raise demand for your product is to give it away." He explained to Joshua Green of the Atlantic: "What people today are beginning to realize is what became obvious to us back then--the important correlation is the one between familiarity and value, not scarcity and value. Adam Smith taught that the scarcer you make something, the more valuable it becomes. In the physical world, that works beautifully. But we couldn't regulate [taping at] our shows, and you can't online. The Internet doesn't behave that way. But here's the thing: if I give my song away to 20 people, and they give it to 20 people, pretty soon everybody knows me, and my value as a creator is dramatically enhanced. That was the value proposition with the Dead."

[audiodb]

Food for thought

"The Grateful Dead was famous for letting their fans tape their live shows. I remember being on a flight to Vegas from Seattle with a planeload of Deadheads and the guy next to me had a suitcase full of live concert tapes that he had recorded with each tape meticulously labeled with the concert date and location.

The Dead recognized that allowing fans to record for free widened their audience and the band became one of the most profitable groups in history. The band's lyricist, John Perry Barlow, went on to become an Internet guru.

Barlow wrote in Wired in 1994 that in the information economy, "the best way to raise demand for your product is to give it away." He explained to Joshua Green of the Atlantic: "What people today are beginning to realize is what became obvious to us back then--the important correlation is the one between familiarity and value, not scarcity and value. Adam Smith taught that the scarcer you make something, the more valuable it becomes. In the physical world, that works beautifully. But we couldn't regulate [taping at] our shows, and you can't online. The Internet doesn't behave that way. But here's the thing: if I give my song away to 20 people, and they give it to 20 people, pretty soon everybody knows me, and my value as a creator is dramatically enhanced. That was the value proposition with the Dead."

And that's a perfectly valid strategy....if it's your music to give away. Most DCI corps, however, are playing someone else's compositions.

[JimF-LowBari]

Furthermore, considering the number of YouTube videos there are of big-name orchestras performing famous pieces ostensibly without having paid for the rights to distribute, I don't think DCI is high on the ladder of things to crack down on for these people.

Can just hear my folks now... "All it takes is one person".

Doesn't matter how visible or important DCI is compared to other groups. Important thing is DCI needs to protect itself, or at least try to protect itself, in case the crap does hit the fan. If DCI would get sued and their past actions showed that they knew about illegal use of copyrighted materials but ignored it, DCI would be liable big time. And let's be brutal honest here... Could DCI afford lawsuits like this? Even if the case did not go to trial DCI could lose its' butt in legal costs. Yeah it sucks not being able to record what we want but that's part of the price we pay to keep DCI viable.

Can't deal with what people (composers/arrangers) "might" do, what happened in the past or "somebody else does it more". In these sue me-sue you days you have to cover your butt as much as possible and hope for the best. IMO it's not a question of someone taping for personal use so it's not "really going to hurt". It's the fact that not policing this allows DCI to be open for lawsuits that could kill it.

Edit: Before anyone says "That would never happen" let's remember that DCI is using things (amps/Bb/voice/electronics) that a few years ago people were saying would never happen. If something could happen usually all it needs is time.

Edited February 18, 2010 by JimF-3rdBari

[byline]

The Dead recognized that allowing fans to record for free widened their audience and the band became one of the most profitable groups in history. The band's lyricist, John Perry Barlow, went on to become an Internet guru.

But keep in mind, that's their choice, and being the copyright owners, they are entitled to make that choice. Just as other copyright owners may not view that as benefiting them, but either way, it's their call to make, not ours. What copyright law does is put the copyright owner in the driver's seat, in terms of deciding how they want their works distributed. The onus is on the rest of us to respect the wishes of the copyright owner and, at the very least, ask permission before distributing copyrighted work (and pay attention to the law that protects their right to make that call). We can't just assume that because somebody else has decided it's OK for fans to freely distribute their work, everyone has decided that's OK.

Edited February 18, 2010 by byline