Copyright Issues

[MikeD]

Oh hell. Now you've done it - this is going to be the annual poetry in BD's show release / description this year.

Mike

Either that or this...

Did I ever tell you that Mrs. McCave

Had twenty-three sons and she named them all Dave?

Well, she did. And that wasn't a smart thing to do.

You see, when she wants one and calls out, "Yoo-Hoo!

Come into the house, Dave!" she doesn't get one.

All twenty-three Daves of hers come on the run!

This makes things quite difficult at the McCaves'

As you can imagine, with so many Daves.

And often she wishes that, when they were born,

She had named one of them Bodkin Van Horn

And one of them Hoos-Foos. And one of them Snimm.

And one of them Hot-Shot. And one Sunny Jim.

And one of them Shadrack. And one of them Blinkey.

And one of them Stuffy. And one of them Stinkey.

Another one Putt-Putt. Another one Moon Face.

Another one Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face.

And one of them Ziggy. And one Soggy Muff.

One Buffalo Bill. And one Biffalo Buff.

And one of them Sneepy. And one Weepy Weed.

And one Paris Garters. And one Harris Tweed.

And one of them Sir Michael Carmichael Zutt

And one of them Oliver Boliver Butt

And one of them Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate ...

But she didn't do it. And now it's too late.

[84BDsop]

See the oppression inherent in the system!! (Monty Python)

Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!

[Jeff Ream]

Alright; but to treat this subject honestly we should cite all of the debates, letters, speeches, et al (especially the literary fights between Madison and Jefferson) that the Founders had on this subject. And if we did that it would show that most of the Founders agreed with Madison and the writings of Locke, not Jefferson, concerning Property Rights (who actually misquoted Locke by replacing the word Property with the phrase Pursuit of Happiness).

then it would have made the constitution

[Stu]

then it would have made the constitution

The spelling out of Divine Providence as the basis of the Constitution did not have to be explicit because The Founders, who subscribed to Enlightenment, automatically viewed Divine Providence as implicit; and they did not separate the ideals found in the Constitution from those prescribed in the Declaration of Independence (one reason why those two documents are still displayed side-by-side today). Yes, the Founders were appalled that England forced religion upon its people; they saw that as governmental oppression. And there are many quotes from the Founders which support their desire to keep our government from forcing the church upon the citizens of the United States (the most famous being the letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church). Thus they desired the U.S. Constitution to be written in a manner which opened up freedom of religion and guaranteed the separation of ‘religion’ from the government. But they never, ever intended for the Constitution to be separated from a belief in Divine Providence as the guiding principal for interpreting the text. And while there is no specific language dealing with Divine Providence written in the actual document, in order to view the Constitution in its proper light we have to, we must, filter it through what the Founders actually said about the Constitution during the Constitutional Congress and subsequent Ratification. I do not want to get into a ping-pong quote match, but here are a few:

"I sincerely esteem the Constitution a system which, without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." – Alexander Hamilton

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." – Thomas Jefferson

“I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of [human] inspiration. But I am as satisfied that is the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament.” – Benjamin Rush

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” – John Adams

“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building [of the Constitution] no better than the builders of Babel” – Benjamin Franklin

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” – James Madison

[Slingerland]

So....Tresona is actually just enforcing the laws of God. Got it.

That helps explain why they demanded that DCI not just fork over a check, but invade Music for All, kill all the men and livestock, and keep the women as slaves.

[Rileydog]

So, as DCI continues, would corps be better off writing/developing their own music? Or, is the competitive value of using copyrighted music to much to overcome? Boiled down, does the copyright issue only effect the fans who want to watch shows in perpetuity?

[Kamarag]

So, as DCI continues, would corps be better off writing/developing their own music? Or, is the competitive value of using copyrighted music to much to overcome? Boiled down, does the copyright issue only effect the fans who want to watch shows in perpetuity?

Arranging and performance rights, which are what the corps pay for, aren't expensive. It's the synch/mechanical/streaming rights, which are *not* secured by the individual corps, where the problems lay.

[wonker]

Arranging and performance rights, which are what the corps pay for, aren't expensive. It's the synch/mechanical/streaming rights, which are *not* secured by the individual corps, where the problems lay.

I asked this in a forum specific to the CD's, but will ask it here as well.

I understand the multiple levels of rights needed, and I understand that the greater cost to the end user is the acquisition of the sync/mechanical/streaming rights, and I also agree that an artist/composer has every right to not have his product re-arranged or used in any manner of which he does not approve (and profit from if he so chooses).

However, as in the specific case of Tim Burton and his Corpse's Bride property, what is the benefit of allowing the Academy the mechanical rights to produce, re-produce and sell the audio recording of their use of his work, but declining the sync rights that would allow the video of the exact same performance? If you didn't like what was done to your "art", why grant the mechanical rights? If you did, why not grant the sync rights? What is truly the difference in how your work was presented and preserved for the future?

[Stu]

So....Tresona is actually just enforcing the laws of God. Got it.

That helps explain why they demanded that DCI not just fork over a check, but invade Music for All, kill all the men and livestock, and keep the women as slaves.

Sarcasm becomes you There are no 'Laws' within the Constitution but 'principles' in which Law stands upon; principles that the Founders believed were drawn upon the Divine Providence of the Creator, God, Nature's God. For example, Copyright Law, which is crafted at the direction of Congress, is based on the 'principle' written in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 of the Constitution. Tresona is an agency acting as a gate-keeper of Copyright Law protecting the (property) which rightfully owned by entities other than DCI and their Corps as well as Music For All and their Bands. Again it is 'property'; just like your house; you own the house; would you want DCI and Music for All breaking into your house and stealing what they desire for their own pleasure? That is what happens when a musical arrangement, performance, recording, etc... is done of Copyrighted material by people who do not own the property and they fail to seek permission from the rightful owner; they 'steal' property that does not belong to them.

[Stu]

I asked this in a forum specific to the CD's, but will ask it here as well.

I understand the multiple levels of rights needed, and I understand that the greater cost to the end user is the acquisition of the sync/mechanical/streaming rights, and I also agree that an artist/composer has every right to not have his product re-arranged or used in any manner of which he does not approve (and profit from if he so chooses).

However, as in the specific case of Tim Burton and his Corpse's Bride property, what is the benefit of allowing the Academy the mechanical rights to produce, re-produce and sell the audio recording of their use of his work, but declining the sync rights that would allow the video of the exact same performance? If you didn't like what was done to your "art", why grant the mechanical rights? If you did, why not grant the sync rights? What is truly the difference in how your work was presented and preserved for the future?

In most cases, the print-rights, mechanical-rights, and sync-rights are owned by different agencies. That is why a corps can gain arranging-rights permission (from the owner of the print-rights) but DCI cannot get permission to video record (from the owner of the sync-rights).