drumcat Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/WeThePeople OK, there aren't many things on this forum that people are universal about. This might be one. Clarifying music licensing issues for non-profit performance and sale might seem small-potatoes, but every kid in every music program in the nation is affected by it. So is DCI. So is MFA, your local HS Choir, etc. etc.... Maybe the collective here can at least get this addressed? In a strange way, it lets politics be pushed aside. I'd like to see where live, instrumental performances of any licensed music cannot be denied a synchronization license. Play a tune on an instrument, and you can in fact put it on a video; in the same way mechanicals are "automatic". Anyone with this? Only 5,000 people... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/WeThePeople OK, there aren't many things on this forum that people are universal about. This might be one. Clarifying music licensing issues for non-profit performance and sale might seem small-potatoes, but every kid in every music program in the nation is affected by it. So is DCI. So is MFA, your local HS Choir, etc. etc.... Maybe the collective here can at least get this addressed? In a strange way, it lets politics be pushed aside. I'd like to see where live, instrumental performances of any licensed music cannot be denied a synchronization license. Play a tune on an instrument, and you can in fact put it on a video; in the same way mechanicals are "automatic". Anyone with this? Only 5,000 people... I realize that I will be in the minority on this issue, but it is not an issue in which all on this forum will be in universal agreement. Sorry, but even though I agree with your feelings in this matter and feel some copyright owners are just ogres with no hearts, I still fall on the side that it is their property not the public's (or the non-profits). I want to allow them the constitutional right to be jerks and horde their own toys simply because they are the rightful owners of those toys. Why? Because I do not believe the government should "force" anyone to release permission to use their own property over to a public entity. Edit: I guess that I was wrong on one point; apparently I am "not" in the minority after reading the posts below. Edited September 1, 2011 by Stu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumlaw80 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I respectfully think you should learn a little more about the business of music publishing before you call for a compulsory synchronization license. First, your idea would kill the ability of the music publishers and copyright holders to make a living. Second, I don't think you've thought through the implications of this. Here's a (wacky) hypothetical example -- Lets say you just wrote a profoundly great musical composition, and you dedicate the piece to your late grandfather. It means the world to you, and if the best thing you have ever written in your life. Psycho Bob, a hermit in Alaska, decides to make a hard core Nazi porn movie dedicated to extolling the virtues of the Third Reich. No one is going to buy this ridiculous movie, of course, but he's going to put it on You Tube and proceed to rack up ten million views and get mentioned on national news, because it is so controversial. The best musical composition you have ever written is over the opening credits of the Nazi porn movie, and there is nothing you can do about it, because Psycho Bob went online and purchased a compulsory synch license from you for $100. Two days later, Warner Bros. fires you from your job as music composer. Still want your compulsory synch license? 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I realize that I will be in the minority on this issue, but it is not an issue in which all on this forum will be in universal agreement. Sorry, but even though I agree with your feelings in this matter and feel some copyright owners are just ogres with no hearts, I still fall on the side that it is their property not the public's (or the non-profits). I want to allow them the constitutional right to be jerks and horde their own toys simply because they are the rightful owners of those toys. Why? Because I do not believe the government should "force" anyone to release permission to use their own property over to a public entity. I agree. While I think it is too bad that drum corps have problems securing all necessary rights, I believe that creators should have control of their intellectual property. This is an issue (as Lee mentions in another post) that can be more complicated than one simple, fix-it-all solution. While there is a plethora of John Williams music that would be incredible on a DCI/WGI/BOA competition floor (not just the popular 'concert suite' pieces, but a TON of incidental score material), I 100% respect his choice to not 'trust' arrangers with his property and instead to only allow his music to be played by non-profits via pre-approved arrangements available through the usual retailers/publishers. That's his choice, and if I ever write/arrange anything that is interesting enough to be played/sold to more than just programs I teach, I would like to have the same control. I think, in light of recent events in DCI corps being unable to secure proper rights & cause DCI to release "censored" versions of their shows on the DVD's, a more apt discussion should be the ramifications (if any) for a corps to move forward with a piece and being unable to secure proper rights. Instead of looking at burning publishers at the stakes for protecting their property, perhaps it's more appropriate to look at a solution (if any) to sway corps away from using literature they're unable to secure rights to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) The main problem is really not that permissions get rejected (most get approved). The real issue is that it takes sometimes over a year to receive answers to those requests from the copyright holders which puts corps and DCI in a real bind. So, would not a good compromise fix here be some sort of a streamlined request system to expedite response times concerning permission requests? Edited September 1, 2011 by Stu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CQuinn Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I want Psycho Bob's phone number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The main problem is really not that permissions get rejected (most get approved). The real issue is that it takes sometimes over a year to receive answers to those requests from the copyright holders which puts corps and DCI in a real bind. So, would not a good compromise fix here be some sort of a streamlined request system to expedite response times concerning permission requests? I personally think this would be a great idea. However, I confess that I do not know the complexities of the issues, so I'm not sure how feasible this would be. But I'd be all for this type of solution, especially since most of the time this (needing to secure synching rights) is a time-sensitive nature. Most of the time, synching rights = money-making venture (selling CD's, an online subscription service, advertising a product, etc) so I would guess that's why it can take awhile for lawyers & publishers to analyze how much money is being made + how much money they'd like to receive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I respectfully think you should learn a little more about the business of music publishing before you call for a compulsory synchronization license. First, your idea would kill the ability of the music publishers and copyright holders to make a living. Second, I don't think you've thought through the implications of this. Here's a (wacky) hypothetical example -- Lets say you just wrote a profoundly great musical composition, and you dedicate the piece to your late grandfather. It means the world to you, and if the best thing you have ever written in your life. Psycho Bob, a hermit in Alaska, decides to make a hard core Nazi porn movie dedicated to extolling the virtues of the Third Reich. No one is going to buy this ridiculous movie, of course, but he's going to put it on You Tube and proceed to rack up ten million views and get mentioned on national news, because it is so controversial. The best musical composition you have ever written is over the opening credits of the Nazi porn movie, and there is nothing you can do about it, because Psycho Bob went online and purchased a compulsory synch license from you for $100. Two days later, Warner Bros. fires you from your job as music composer. Still want your compulsory synch license? Well, he did mention, " I'd like to see where live, instrumental performances of any licensed music cannot be denied a synchronization license." While, as a member of ASCAP, I have concerns about composers losing control of how their music is utilized, what I quoted from what he wrote would only apply to your scenario if Psycho Bob sent out a live orchestra to play in the pit during the performances of each and every showing of the Nazi porn flick, which I'm guessing would greatly cut down on PB's ability to market the movie. He still wouldn't be allowed to cannibalize the music for his YouTube venture as the law as expressed only applies to live, instrumental performances. That's not a minor point and it's understandable you might miss it if you're not a lawyer. Oh, wait... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) ...what I quoted from what he wrote would only apply to your scenario if Psycho Bob sent out a live orchestra to play in the pit during the performances of each and every showing of the Nazi porn flick, That's not a minor point and it's understandable you might miss it if you're not a lawyer. Oh, wait... Michael: Sorry, but you are incorrect here because this deals with a sync (video) license "of" said performance, not the performance itself. The proper reading of his quote would be if Psycho Bob sent out a live orchestra to play in the pit and that performance was video recorded. But, I did green ya for the effort Edited September 1, 2011 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Michael: Sorry, but you are incorrect here because this deals with a sync (video) license "of" said performance, not the performance itself. The proper reading of his quote would be if Psycho Bob sent out a live orchestra to play in the pit and that performance was video recorded. But, I did green ya for the effort I do appreciate being greened, and you may have a point. But the same synch rights that would extend to the live performance wouldn't extend to the Nazi porn version, would it? (I'm not really up on the ramifications of Nazi porn background music; it's still an evolving genre.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts