Pirated finals videos

[JimF-LowBari]

Just love the reasoning going on here:

It's OK to flaunt copyright laws if:

1) you don't think anyone will notice

2) someone else does it (ie - other vids on YouTube)

3) just sounds dumb that the copyright holder would take legal action

4) don't really care for that composer/arranger

5) the whole idea just really sounds dumb

Or is it really: I want to do it and #### if it hurts anyone else.

[liebot]

The problem is not necessarily DCI getting sued directly, but rather the damage to corps' ability to secure rights for performing pieces and DCI's ability to secure mechanical and other licenses to distribute. You're missing the other half of the equation: it's not simply "I found a bootleg video, therefore I sue." Composers/rights-holders may become reluctant to give the rights to corps if it became apparent that DCI/DCA were not making an effort at controlling who records shows. Royalties are paid out based on recordings, and if it became clear that DCI was letting anybody record shows it would result in those who hold the rights to music reluctant or hostile to letting an organization that (actively or passively) allows their royalty money to slip away. No, copyright law is not strictly about royalties, but that's a big part of it.

I think the type of people that would see a crappy video on YouTube and stop granting performance rights are probably the same people that already refuse to give corps performance rights. And as I said before, I think DCI (and the corps) have a pretty compelling argument that they are taking the necessary steps to limit piracy as much as possible. You can find videos of nearly any ensemble performing any piece online now. I think the (vast majority of) reasonable people holding these copyrights realize the way that digital media is moving at the moment and might be willing to let some low-quality videos slide.

Let's stay off the hyperbole train; none of that stuff is in question. What they're doing now--printing disclaimers advising ticket buyers that they cannot record and whatever sort of usher instruction is going on at shows, and asking sites like YouTube to remove what bootleg clips there are--has clearly been enough at least for now to satisfy those who might have a problem. The question has never been "Should DCI step up enforcement of anti-recording rules to ridiculous levels," but simply "How would you respond to someone doing it near you?"

The discussion has drifted all over the place from the original question. And - I don't feel like rereading the rest of the thread to find it - my feeling is that there were a number of people that posted earlier suggesting that it should be on the ushers to take care of things, that they should be doing more to make sure it doesn't happen, etc.

What do you base that on?

The same thing 95% of people on this site base their opinions on: marginally-educated speculation.

That's my point: a composer could stop granting DCI permission to arrange/synch/distribute their music if they feel DCI is no doing everything possible to control distribution of their copyright. I'm counter arguing the "it's a victimless crime" nonsense by pointing out what I think is probably the most logical course of action for copyright holders unhappy with their intellectual property being illegally recorded and distributed.

And while you might consider the situation of losing a composer's willingness to grant permission for DCI (or bands) to use their music "no big loss," I'm sure corps designers would disagree.

As mentioned above, this doesn't seem likely. If it does, good. DCI is creatively dead now anyway when it comes to music selection. If a restriction on choice forces them to branch out and find some new stuff, great.

[liebot]

Just love the reasoning going on here:

It's OK to flaunt copyright laws if:

1) you don't think anyone will notice

2) someone else does it (ie - other vids on YouTube)

3) just sounds dumb that the copyright holder would take legal action

4) don't really care for that composer/arranger

5) the whole idea just really sounds dumb

Or is it really: I want to do it and #### if it hurts anyone else.

Wrong. It's okay to flaunt these specific copyright laws because the laws are wrong.

[perc2100]

Wrong. It's okay to flaunt these specific copyright laws because the laws are wrong.

Says the person whom I'm willing to bet has never published any intellectual property (book, music composition, etc), and has never had to deal with someone either a) making money off of YOUR property that you created and they did not, or b) someone using your property in ways you don't want them to.

The laws are on the books to protect the creators of intellectual property (and/or the companies the creators sell their property to). If a composer disagrees with the copyright laws, they are free to distribute and encourage sharing of THEIR intellectual property any way they wish (as Philip Glass does).

I've talked to composers who do not allow DCI (or marching bands) to use their compositions (or at least very rarely). They do so because they created music to evoke certain feelings, or commemorate certain events. When other people want to take their music and shape it in ways not intended by the composers (or even thought of), or to evoke feelings the composer deemed inappropriate (i.e. any feelings not intended to be evoked by their original composition), they are upset. Further, it annoys them when they see their pieces cut up and desecrated (their words) on youtube, they are enraged and do everything in their power to seek restitution. They have 'forced' groups in the past to scrap a show mid-competitive season based on what they saw on youtube and did not like.

And that is their right. The copyright laws protect the creators of intellectual property, and they're not made for your (our) enjoyment/agreement.

[perc2100]

By the way, many of us don't know with 100% certainty WHY composers don't grant permission to DCI corps. But I do know that MANY people were livid in 2008 when their DCI DVD's arrived and Phantom's show had a cut in it due to the corps using music without permission. This type of thing is not uncommon in WGI either, as parts of a show will lose audio during the duration of the copy right infringement.

I would think that in an activity where we generally depend almost 100% on getting copyright permission to use music in the design of shows, we would do everything in our power to ensure the continued use of other people's music. This is not just on the corps and DCI following the rules, but it is also on us, the audience, to do our part to not break copyright regulations. All of us would love free DVD's and audio recordings of our favorite shows. But that doesn't make it legal, or give us a free pass to break rules.

Edited February 19, 2010 by perc2100

[Slow Adam]

By the way, many of us don't know with 100% certainty WHY composers don't grant permission to DCI corps. But I do know that MANY people were livid in 2008 when their DCI DVD's arrived and Phantom's show had a cut in it due to the corps using music without permission. This type of thing is not uncommon in WGI either, as parts of a show will lose audio during the duration of the copy right infringement.

It's not that Phantom, or other groups in DCI or WGI, "used the music without permission".

There are two separate issues - permission to arrange/perform, and synchronization rights. Phantom was bitten by the latter, and IIRC it was well after the fact that the composer denied rights.

[Kamarag]

It's not that Phantom, or other groups in DCI or WGI, "used the music without permission".

There are two separate issues - permission to arrange/perform, and synchronization rights. Phantom was bitten by the latter, and IIRC it was well after the fact that the composer denied rights.

Which is why they should have secured synchro rights BEFORE the season started.

[Slow Adam]

Which is why they should have secured synchro rights BEFORE the season started.

Again, I may be wrong here, but I think the composer may have had a change of heart after the fact.

[corps-mudgeon]

Again, I may be wrong here, but I think the composer may have had a change of heart after the fact.

If I recall the rumors at the time correctly, the copyright holder had given verbal agreement but nothing had been signed. If there were a written contract I don't think a change of mind would have mattered.

[garfield]

Just love the reasoning going on here:

It's OK to flaunt copyright laws if:

1) you don't think anyone will notice

2) someone else does it (ie - other vids on YouTube)

3) just sounds dumb that the copyright holder would take legal action

4) don't really care for that composer/arranger

5) the whole idea just really sounds dumb

Or is it really: I want to do it and #### if it hurts anyone else.

Simple. Effective. And to the point. I like it.