The laws of music licensing

[Michael Boo]

The Founders, in their wisdom, knew that abstract creations should be protected; and with the ever increasing situation of money changing hands with variations based on those creations (millions and millions of dollars in transactions though ticket sales, arranging, recording, performing, DVD's, Mp3's, etc) the increase in years of Copyright Protection for those creations is, in my opinion, both understandable and righteous.

Plus, the founders of this country never factored in the Internet, DVDs, CDs, mp3s, etc. But hey, 20 years ago, neither did the rest of us. And who knows how technology will change in the future and how creators' rights will need to be further protected.

[Stu]

... All I know about licensing today is it's difficult and I expect it to get more difficult.

This is where I do think a problem exists in the current Copyright system. There is way too much bureaucracy and a convoluted myriad of red tape; the process to secure permission and licensing from Copyright Owners needs to be streamlined and simplified.

[acolli17]

Ummmm... the way "it is" does not suck if you are the owner of the intellectual property! To me what sucks is if people in essence "steal" from the Copyright Owners by arranging, recording, performing, videoing, and selling those items without gaining permission and licensing.

Ok, again let me reiterate.

This is my opinion.

My opinion is that part of my summer is a little tarnished now that I can't see the audio and video synced.

I don't really care about intellectual property, it's not my job as the performer of the show to care about it, nor have I even touched on the subject prior to making this statement.

And furthermore, I never even said I don't respect the intellectual property. I'm talking about myself, and my opinions on how things have played out. I never even placed blame on anyone.

You're trying to force your opinion on someone (me) who honestly doesn't care what your opinion is. No offense. So I would really appreciate it if you got off my back about it.

Thanks for your concern.

Edited November 6, 2010 by acolli17

[Stu]

... I would really appreciate it if you got off my back about it.

Ok.

[Jeff Ream]

if you want to see how difficult licensing is, check out the list on WGI's site

[BOBSMYTH]

There are simple and easy solutions to the problem of corps finding out after the fact that a piece of their show didn't ultimately get permissions and licenses for all of the various ways in which it will be used:

*Play public domain only. No (or easy to obtain) permissions and no fees needed under normal circumstances.

*Play original works only - composed for that corps and that year. You will still need to pay royalties to the composer but you have the permission on the front end.

*Have the corps choose the music for their shows about 2 -3 years ahead of time so there is sufficient time to obtain all licenses and approvals. And, there is sufficient time to change the show if permission is not obtained.

IOW, you have to work around the system. Trying to work within today's complicated morass of a system will continue to produce occasional unsatisfactory situations - like this one.

[N.E. Brigand]

except that the founders never intended for copyright to last as long as it has now. originally it was 14 years plus an option to extend an additional 14 years if the author was still alive, not the current 'life of the author plus 70 years' or 95 years.

I agree with you: copyright as initially conceived in the U.S. (based on British laws, by the way) actually allowed for the possibility that works could fall into the public domain in the creator's lifetime. To me, the issues that Stu and Boo have raised, about the proliferation of other media to which works can be copied, have no bearing on the question of how long a work ought to be protected by copyright. Personally, given that U.S. life expectancy has increased by 43 years, I think that the term now ought to be 71 years or the death of the author, whichever comes later.

That said, in this particular case, presuming the song in question to be John Bon Jovi and Richie Sambora's "Wanted: Dead of Alive", the composer-lyricists are still alive, and it's been less than 71 years (or even 28 years) since the work was written.

I remain curious as to why the rights were granted for arranging, performing and audio-recording, but not for video-recording.

[BetoSuave]

(yada, yada, yada)

I remain curious as to why the rights were granted for arranging, performing and audio-recording, but not for video-recording.

Maybe they are controlled by different licensing entities and the proverbial left hand doesn't know what the right has done.

There are lots of parties and their licenses (and their liars lawyers) involved. One for permission to arrange, one for public performance, one for mechanical reproduction, one for video sync (which may be a movie studio, for instance), one for broadcast, and so-on.

[IllianaLancerContra]

The answer is Sousa.

Drum corps needs more Sousa...

[jjeffeory]

Uh oh....a room full of "experts".

I'll just back out slowly....

Too late, you've made yourself known...