The World Series of Drum Corps

[bawker]

And don't forget that DCI owns the rights to all A/V in history, so the G7 will not be able to use those, or their past relationship with DCI, in marketing their own gigs

. . .interesting point for 2011: do the G7 folks decide to brand their audio/video independent of the rest of DCI, and release their own "championship package" of A/V stuff from the Annapolis show?

[GUARDLING]

This is as good an interpretation of the current situation as any I've seen.

And don't forget that DCI owns the rights to all A/V in history, so the G7 will not be able to use those, or their past relationship with DCI, in marketing their own gigs.

They can build their own future but they have no rights to the A/V of the past.

I bet they can. IF its a non DCI sponsored event. Otherwise DCI would be able to keep those other things off youtube and they cant

[mobrien]

well, if the G7 claims they are the draw, how can they also claim that being at 1 show and leaving the other "non drawing corps" to other shows does not hurt the other shows?

Is everything in the first one dead? Or is this adjusting the first one? Is the first one still there and everything is the same, except for what is mentioned in the post on page 2 of this thread?

From an argument standpoint, their claim seems to be a subtle way of saying "put up or shut up" for those who'd want to deny that there's a hierarchy in terms of drawing power. If, as some suggest here, the major corps AREN'T really all that special in terms of ticket sales, there's no harm in letting them do their thing, since they won't make that much more money.

But if someone wants to argue that allowing the seven to own nine contests of their own makes it impossible for anyone to get an audience that night, then they're more or less acceding to the G7's point re: their own box office potential. It's a manner of framing the argument in their favor, though I'm sure there are sound counter-arguments from the other side (though the "you owe us your work" argument is a little creepy to me, since I don't know anyone who'd feel comfortable with that working relationship).

Seems everything else that was in the original proposal is dead.

Edited August 10, 2010 by mobrien

[soccerguy315]

They can build their own future but they have no rights to the A/V of the past.

Would it be accurate to say that BD is already on top of this? Was this the driving point behind the development of their Mediabox stuff?

[brians]

will be very interesting to see how this will play out with placements at DCI this year. Hopefully, the judges will have not been strong armed with the threat of being black balled by the G7 for other venues they hire/influence the hiring of judges in ie....other marching/band/preforming arts events.

[garfield]

I bet they can. IF its a non DCI sponsored event. Otherwise DCI would be able to keep those other things off youtube and they cant

I'll take that bet, and you'd lose. And the Youtube issue is a sidestep; DCI can't police youtube any better than they can stop fans from recording shows with palm-sized recorders. There is a financial reality to litigating copyright abuses on YouTube. You can't correlate that to DCI's ability to stop the G7 from using past A/V in marketing the Series. In fact, I would suggest that DCI would have the G7 in their target, looking specifically for violations of copyright to attack.

[soccerguy315]

From an argument standpoint, their claim seems to be a subtle way of saying "put up or shut up" for those who'd want to deny that there's a hierarchy in terms of drawing power. If, as some suggest here, the major corps AREN'T really all that special in terms of ticket sales, there's no harm in letting them do their thing, since they won't make that much more money.

But if someone wants to argue that allowing the seven to own nine contests of their own makes it impossible for anyone to get an audience that night, then they're more or less acceding to the G7's point re: their own box office potential. It's a manner of framing the argument in their favor, though I'm sure there are sound counter-arguments from the other side (though the "you owe us your work" argument is a little creepy to me, since I don't know anyone who'd feel comfortable with that working relationship).

Seems everything else that was in the original proposal is dead.

maybe DCI should get them a plaque that says they draw lots of fans. Then they will know that they draw fans, and they will still be part of DCI.

[JimF-LowBari]

I'll take that bet, and you'd lose. And the Youtube issue is a sidestep; DCI can't police youtube any better than they can stop fans from recording shows with palm-sized recorders. There is a financial reality to litigating copyright abuses on YouTube. You can't correlate that to DCI's ability to stop the G7 from using past A/V in marketing the Series. In fact, I would suggest that DCI would have the G7 in their target, looking specifically for violations of copyright to attack.

Which brings up another interesting rights/money issue. Wonder how many rights holders to music might have a different set of criteria in dealing with a G7 corps as opposed to a DCI corps. Or to put it another way, the rights holders may have had dealings with DCI corps but now here comes this NEW entities corsp asking for permission.

[Tez]

From an argument standpoint, their claim seems to be a subtle way of saying "put up or shut up" for those who'd want to deny that there's a hierarchy in terms of drawing power. If, as some suggest here, the major corps AREN'T really all that special in terms of ticket sales, there's no harm in letting them do their thing, since they won't make that much more money.

But if someone wants to argue that allowing the seven to own nine contests of their own makes it impossible for anyone to get an audience that night, then they're more or less acceding to the G7's point re: their own box office potential. It's a manner of framing the argument in their favor, though I'm sure there are sound counter-arguments from the other side (though the "you owe us your work" argument is a little creepy to me, since I don't know anyone who'd feel comfortable with that working relationship).

Seems everything else that was in the original proposal is dead.

Yes the G7 are correct..... they are (for the most part) THE major draw.

So What? That doesn't make what they are trying to do "correct." You don't need to harm the poor to make the rich richer.

[GMichael1230]

Which brings up another interesting rights/money issue. Wonder how many rights holders to music might have a different set of criteria in dealing with a G7 corps as opposed to a DCI corps. Or to put it another way, the rights holders may have had dealings with DCI corps but now here comes this NEW entities corsp asking for permission.

Exactly. And its one of the major reasons these seven wont go out on their own. And about owning the right to the names, I might have gotten the wording wrong, but I do know that DCI does get money should they go out on their own and use the names.

G