Pirated finals videos

[jjeffeory]

Considering the majority of videos on YouTube are posted by individual users who taped/recorded a performance from within a concert hall or off of TV and posted it to share with people, yes, I'm pretty sure that those people do not own the distribution rights. Which brings me to another point - why would the composers sue DCI if they stumbled across bootleg videos of music on YouTube? Do you think Philip Glass would sue a professional orchestra if some Joe Schmoe took a video of them performing one of his pieces? For a more pertinent example, do you think Michael Jackson's estate would sue the LSO because there are recordings of them performing music by The Beatles on YouTube (because there are)? If I go to a performance of my music school's orchestra, record a video, and post it online, do you think the school would be sued? I'm sorry, I just don't see any scenario where a composer would see a video on YouTube and - instead of reporting the video and getting it promptly removed - sue the corps or DCI.

Who says that DCI is "sitting back and allowing it to happen?" What level of policing is required by them to ensure that these dastardly acts of piracy don't happen? Metal detectors? Strip searches? Would that be enough? If they did that and someone found a way to get a video on YouTube, would DCI still be culpable? DCI has a significant body of evidence to suggest that they are taking reasonable, responsible steps to prevent people from recording (I.e., posting notices warning against recording, putting it in the program, saying it over the intercom, having security guards present, checking people's bags at the gate, etc.), so I see no reason for this rampant paranoia that somehow DCI is going to end up with the short end of the stick on this one. Sure, we might see a reluctance for composers to grant performance rights to corps, but as far as I'm concerned the only people that would do that would be big-name composers that don't need the $$$ that corps pay for arrangement rights, and I've heard enough of the same 20 composers in the last five years anyway. So no big loss.

I think you're onto something here! Perhaps the issue isn't really copyright as much as something else such as control of DCI media by DCI or something along those lines. At any rate, it is interesting to think about.

[Dave]

I think you're onto something here! Perhaps the issue isn't really copyright as much as something else such as control of DCI media by DCI or something along those lines. At any rate, it is interesting to think about.

But that in and of itself is a copyright issue.

[Nex]

Why are we even arguing over something that is illegal, and therefore wrong?

Really, Mike? Just because something is illegal it's automatically wrong? Without putting my own opinion in (because, frankly, I doubt anyone cares or that it will change their minds), I want to point out the fallacy of that quote. How do you equate legality with right/wrong? If you're going to chide people on the use of situational ethics, then you need to make a better argument than "the rules say so, so it must be wrong." There are lots of things I'd consider wrong, or morally questionable, that have been justified by laws in history.

Perhaps these people aren't so much in favor of doing something wrong as changing a rule they feel is wrong. You're completely justified in saying, "That's illegal." That's a simple, objective fact. You are not, however, in a position of moral authority to tell anyone they are doing something "wrong."

[Kamarag]

Really, Mike? Just because something is illegal it's automatically wrong?

When it's stealing? Yea, it's wrong.

[Nex]

And no one has yet to say exactly *how* it is stealing. They've offered vague references to lost profits with no actual data showing how it has caused any losses. However, there have been several folks who have chimed in with information on how these "bootleg" recordings either (1) introduced them to the activity or (2) gave them enough interest to purchase from DCI (I believe one guy actually ended up buying the whole Legacy Set because of the advertisement brought about by these recordings.

You can't just say, "It's stealing." because you want it to be stealing. You have to show how it actually is theft, and not this ethereal "stealing of the experience" or "taking from the corps" that has yet to be given any data-driven, fact-based, calculable evidence. I'm cool with you not liking the practice or feeling it's wrong, but you can't claim it's something without anything to back it up.

There was a rather amusing (though admittedly meant to be funny) webcomic I can't remember offhand that said something to the tune of, "Piracy is not stealing. Piracy is piracy." with a picture of someone taking an object and leaving nothing in the first frame and someone making a copy and leaving the original in the second frame.

[liebot]

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.

First, I don't think these points have much relation to the discussion re: YouTube videos and the like that we're talking about. I guess if they see videos on YouTube midseason it might be, but I have a feeling they probably would've seen the shows anyway on the fan network, midseason recordings, etc. Also, I'm curious which shows have been scrapped mid-season due to copyright disputes. Not saying you're making stuff up, I just don't really remember that happening to a corps in the time since YouTube came about.

Frankly, my issue with the law has nothing to do with composers, writers, etc. having the right to control who performs their work, how it's arranged, etc. That's great. People should own their own work, and have the right to say "No, you can't use that." My beef is with the concept of cracking down on the free sharing of personal recordings. I would have no problem with someone who recorded a show, invited a friend over, hooked the camera up to a TV, and watched the recordings. I see no evidence to suggest that a situation like that would cause any monetary loss for the corps, the composers, or DCI. In the end it might actually create another fan of the composer or the corps and lead to a small increase in revenue down the line. YouTube, essentially, is an extension of that concept. Yes, I realize the analogy is imperfect, but the question becomes "Where do we draw the line?" What if I have a huge personal theater in my house, invite 100 friends over, and watch some videos I recorded myself. I don't charge anyone anything for it, there's no duplication of the video. Is this wrong?

[liebot]

(I believe one guy actually ended up buying the whole Legacy Set because of the advertisement brought about by these recordings.

That was me. I watched four or five bootleg videos when I was a freshmen in high school, got hooked, wanted more, got a job, and bought the whole collection. It's safe to say that I would not have purchased the DVDs (almost $700 at the time) had I not been exposed to the activity via bootleg videos.

Edited February 19, 2010 by liebot

[liebot]

There was a rather amusing (though admittedly meant to be funny) webcomic I can't remember offhand that said something to the tune of, "Piracy is not stealing. Piracy is piracy." with a picture of someone taking an object and leaving nothing in the first frame and someone making a copy and leaving the original in the second frame.

[Dave]

Except it's an unauthorized copy that doesn't compensate any of the people involved in producing the original. That's what makes it theft.

[liebot]

Except it's an unauthorized copy that doesn't compensate any of the people involved in producing the original. That's what makes it theft.

Yeah, I mean, it's a joke.