The laws of music licensing

[N.E. Brigand]

a) We are discussing intellectual property owned by the publishers and composers; (written into the Federal Constitution).

b) The use, arranging, recording, videoing, and choreographing of intellectual property without permission and licensing constitutes stealing.

c) The issue actually stems from sales of tickets to shows, CD.s, MP3's, and DVD's containing that intellectual property.

d) The person or entity owning the intellectual property can set any price, accept or deny any licensing that they so choose.

e) DCI Administration and all of the Corps' Directors know this risk when they decide to use Copyrighted material.

f) Permission can be granted and licensed for arranging and performing but not recording or videotaping.

g) And I agree with all the above.

You can agree with all of that and still feel that the owner is being foolish in denying a license, or setting the price very high. Just because one has the right to do something does not mean that one should do it.

[Stu]

But before you think the composers are raking it in, realize that typically they receive only 15% from The Man.

Before knocking The Man:

Composers can choose to fork out the costs to print, publish, market, and sell their own materials thus retaining all Copyright Ownership and secure all profits. However, most Composers would not make much money due to those publication costs and they would not be able to sell to the masses in an effective manner. So, The Man, as you put it, is willing to cover the huge costs to print, publish, license, and mass market the music to a wide audience and give up to 15% royalties to the Composer thereby creating a way for the Composer to actually make more money. So, as long as The Man is covering all of the overhead costs, The Man is not shafting the Composer at all by offering 15% royalties. In fact, the Composer will receive those royalties for an entire lifetime every time the music is sold, used, arranged, or performed without ever having to lift another finger.

[Stu]

You can agree with all of that and still feel that the owner is being foolish in denying a license, or setting the price very high. Just because one has the right to do something does not mean that one should do it.

Whether or not I "feel" the Copyright Owner is foolish, or if it goes against what I would choose to do is quite frankly irrelevant. They own it; they can do with it as they please; and again, I agree with that because one of the beauties of the Constitution is that it allows people to be fools as well as saints.

[Piper]

You can agree with all of that and still feel that the owner is being foolish in denying a license, or setting the price very high. Just because one has the right to do something does not mean that one should do it.

The owner is usually the distributor and not the actual composer. Such is life in the music industry today. With that said I agree 100%. If it hadn't been for the Blue Devils I never would have heard of Chuck Mangione. Why anyone would want to stop a corps from playing their material defies my comprehension.

[Michael Boo]

250 large is very likely more than the corps' arrangers are amassing.

But before you think the composers are raking it in, realize that typically they receive only 15% from The Man.

Symphonic band composers typically only get 10%. I've never gotten more than that for any of the band or percussion works I've had published.

[Michael Boo]

...Why anyone would want to stop a corps from playing their material defies my comprehension.

Typically, some composers prefer their music to stay within the same idiom for which it was written. To them, allowing their work to be arranged for drum corps or marching band might be akin to us witnessing an original piece for drum corps arranged for bagpipes.

[N.E. Brigand]

Whether or not I "feel" the Copyright Owner is foolish, or if it goes against what I would choose to do is quite frankly irrelevant. They own it; they can do with it as they please; and again, I agree with that because one of the beauties of the Constitution is that it allows people to be fools as well as saints.

I'm confused: on a drum corps discusion board, the feelings of fans about music being cut from a drum corps DVD is irrelevant?

[Michael Boo]

What is the missing music? And who holds the rights? Would a thousand e-mails from unhappy fans convince them to be more reasonable next time?

I suspect it might make them more resolute. Hearing complaints would not be as effective as hearing polite requests. But if corps ultimately don't play that particular music, it won't be an issue. There are plenty of other musical works out there.

[N.E. Brigand]

From the article:

In the instance of the 2010 Troopers, the appropriate licenses to arrange and perform were obtained prior to the start of the season, allowing the corps to take its entire production on the road to some 30 live events across the country. Not until after the season was concluded was it discovered that a synchronization license, which allows a musical segment to be included along with a fixed visual recording (in this instance on a DVD), could not be obtained from the music publisher.

Why don't the corps (or DCI) ask about synchronization (and audio recording) licenses at the same time they ask about arranging and performing licenses?

Also, I see that "Blair says that a few other small edits were additionally made to seamlessly remove unlicensed musical phrases." Has anyone notice one of these other moments yet on the DVDs? (And how is it managed on high-camera shots?)

I'm not a Fan Network member -- are such edits also made to the videos there?

[Stu]

I'm confused: on a drum corps discusion board, the feelings of fans about music being cut from a drum corps DVD is irrelevant?

Please read my post more closely about my feelings being irrelevant. a) Where does it state that the feelings of anyone other than "I" are discussed? and b) My "feelings" being irrelevant are applied to the law itself and not to fans opinions.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Stu