The World Series of Drum Corps

[bluecoats88]

Not only that but they get things through DCI they cant get on their own. They would also have to pay DCi fees everytime they usee the names: Blue Devils, Cadets, Crown...etc.....DCI owns partial coyright to these names.

DCI also gets steep discounts regarding rights to certain music. An established business, none of these greedy7 have that clout on their own.

G

I don't believe DCI has a partial copywright of independent groups names.

[GMichael1230]

I don't believe DCI has a partial copywright of independent groups names.

I was told otherwise. By more than one person.

G

[GUARDLING]

Not only that but they get things through DCI they cant get on their own. They would also have to pay DCi fees everytime they usee the names: Blue Devils, Cadets, Crown...etc.....DCI owns partial coyright to these names.

DCI also gets steep discounts regarding rights to certain music. An established business, none of these greedy7 have that clout on their own.

G

I dont think DCI owns the names at all Maybe the product for distribution, which corps give permission and Im sure in some court can get that back after a certain time also. DCI is like a co-op not the surpreme owner of anything. MAybe Im wrong in this Ive pretty much stayed on the teaching side of DCI BUT if it is true that DCI does own then an even bigger mistake IMO was made back in 72

[mobrien]

Not only that but they get things through DCI they cant get on their own. They would also have to pay DCi fees everytime they usee the names: Blue Devils, Cadets, Crown...etc.....DCI owns partial coyright to these names.

You can't "own" copyright on an individual organization's name (primarily because "copyright" protects actual bodies of work, not names).

All but one of the seven were incorporated before the advent of DCI, and DCI would have a hard time trying to find a court that would try to keep a free-standing organizations from using their own legal name in the course of business.

Re: the nine dates in question, is there language in the proposal that excludes all other corps from being in other shows those nights? Or is the objection that any other shows would suffer because these seven would be performing elsewhere?

Edited August 10, 2010 by mobrien

[garfield]

Yes. That is what the proposal says. The G7 corps will still participate in DCI shows in addition to the the G7 shows.

Regardless of what the proposal says I can all but guarantee that this will not happen.

[Rifuarian]

It's good to see that the most egregious elements of the original proposal have been cut. But the ferocious response the proposal elicited from DCI and the non-G7 corps may make compromise on this new proposal difficult.

As it is, there's no way the G7 will be allowed to compete with DCI while still remaining part of it. The idea is less outrageous than those on the original G7 power-point slide, but it's still pretty outrageous. If DCI and the rest of the corps don't want to compromise (and this may very well be case), then the G7 faces two unpleasant alternatives: The status quo, or leaving DCI. And I don't think they will really leave. Hopkins' power point showed us what the G7 really thinks of the non-G7 corps, but it also showed us that the G7 feel that they need the DCI safety net.

So it is DCI, I think, that actually has the upper hand here. If they wanted they could stonewall the G7, and win. Negotiation would be better, of course. IMO the ideal outcome would be 4-5 Murfreesboro type shows within the DCI tour with a competitively determined lineup (base on results from the current season, not previous ones), plus a true national tour that includes the West Coast. The ideas for the G7 super shows could easily be incorporated into this format.

Now if the G7 really, truly wants to leave DCI and do their own thing, then great. These organizations -- DCI and the corps -- are ultimately businesses, non-profit or no. For decades DCI has competed with other circuits for corps and audiences, so it is completely within the rights of these corps to form an organization to compete with DCI. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. Unfortunately, the G7 have this notion that it's possible for them to have their cake and eat it, too . . . to stay in DCI while experimenting with a new circuit, thus avoiding much of the risk involved. But this will not (or at least should not) be allowed to happen. Either they stay within DCI and attempt to move the organization forward according to its own rules and tenets, or they leave. There is no middle ground.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Rifuarian

[soccerguy315]

Re: the nine dates in question, is there language in the proposal that excludes all other corps from being in other shows those nights? Or is the objection that any other shows would suffer because these seven would be performing elsewhere?

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?

They said they wouldn't hold shows that conflict with shows that corps sponsor... this obviously implies that they will hold conflicting shows with shows that outside groups sponsor, which would seem to me to push those other sponsors away. Is that what drum corps wants? Fewer sponsors to put on shows?

In the first proposal, it was explicitly stated that other corps would not be allowed to perform on the days where the Greedy7 had their shows, so it appears they are trying to back off a little bit? But, I'm not sure the relationship between this proposal and the first one. 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?

[soccerguy315]

It's good to see that the most egregious elements of the original proposal have been cut. But the ferocious response the proposal elicited from DCI and the non-G7 corps may make compromise on this new proposal difficult.

As it is, there's no way the G7 will be allowed to compete with DCI while still remaining part of it. The idea is less outrageous than those on the original G7 power-point slide, but it's still pretty outrageous. If DCI and the rest of the corps don't want to compromise (and this may very well be case), then the G7 faces two unpleasant alternatives: The status quo, or leaving DCI. And I don't think they will really leave. Hopkins' power point showed us what the G7 really thinks of the non-G7 corps, but it also showed us that the G7 feel that they need the DCI safety net.

So it is DCI, I think, that actually has the upper hand here. If they wanted they could stonewall the G7, and win. Negotiation would be better, of course. IMO the ideal outcome would be 4-5 Murfreesboro type shows within the DCI tour with a competitively determined lineup (base on results from the current season, not previous ones), plus a true national tour that includes the West Coast. The ideas for the G7 super shows could easily be incorporated into this format.

Now if the G7 really, truly wants to leave DCI and do their own thing, then great. These organizations -- DCI and the corps -- are ultimately businesses, non-profit or no. For decades DCI has competed with other circuits for corps and audiences. It is completely within the rights of these corps to form a competing organization. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. Unfortunately, the G7 have this notion that it's possible for them to have their cake and eat it, too . . . to stay in DCI while experimenting with a new circuit, thus avoiding much of the risk involved. But this will not (or at least should not) be allowed to happen. Either they stay within DCI and attempt to move the organization forward according to its own rules and tenets, or they leave. There is no middle ground.

I agree that DCI has the upper hand and that if any of these 7 corps want to leave and do their own thing, they are free to do so. They are trying to play both sides (as you said, compete with DCI but still have the DCI safety net) and that is unacceptable.

[brians]

this is the exact same tactic they used in killing off DCM. Now they seem to be trying to apply it to DCI. half in half out at first and then schedule alternate shows close by other established shows. I agree you are either in or out and are working to build DCI as a stronger organization and not running away with the purse on seporate nights

Edited August 10, 2010 by brians

[garfield]

Now if the G7 really, truly wants to leave DCI and do their own thing, then great. These organizations -- DCI and the corps -- are ultimately businesses, non-profit or no. For decades DCI has competed with other circuits for corps and audiences. It is completely within the rights of these corps to form a competing organization. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. Unfortunately, the G7 have this notion that it's possible for them to have their cake and eat it, too . . . to stay in DCI while experimenting with a new circuit, thus avoiding much of the risk involved. But this will not (or at least should not) be allowed to happen. Either they stay within DCI and attempt to move the organization forward according to its own rules and tenets, or they leave. There is no middle ground.

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.

Edited August 10, 2010 by garfield