Jeff Ream Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Wait. Desperate? Because they used an audio clip? As opposed to using Empire State of Mind as the closer to an NYC theme? I don't understand the distinction. There are lots of good NYC songs. Many are even public domain. So was the selection of Empire State no less desperate for GE? We know in retrospect that the Empire State risk/impact was decidedly worse. It's convenient for some to make audio clips the arch villain because it serves a wider agenda. The fact is the video sync issue has had far worse ramifications when it came to music. HH I agree ESOM should have been handled better. I think I may have posted about it a few times. I am against anyone using #### without clearance. Madison, Cadets, whoever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I agree ESOM should have been handled better. I think I may have posted about it a few times. I am against anyone using #### without clearance. Madison, Cadets, whoever The thing about this is...corps get clearance in terms of permissions to arrange in advance of the season, but getting synch rights often takes what seems half of forever, no matter how actively securing the rights is being pursued. What happened with "Empire State of Mind" was an extreme anomaly; one that I wrote about here some months back. (The State Farm commercial no one could have seen coming prior to the 10th anniversary of 9/11.) Normally, getting the synch rights is pretty much a given once rights to arrange are granted, but it still takes time...lots and lots of time. Unless all corps perform original compositions or public domain music, instances that come out of the blue to throw a monkey wrench in the recordings are going to continue to happen. And I don't hear a groundswell of demand for those kind of creative restrictions. I'd love for the official recordings to be pristine, but the conversation about what's more important has been hashed out here more than once, and fans seem to recognize that the recordings, as wonderful the mementos as they are to have, are frosting on the cake...the cake being the live performances. This is not to say DCI believes, "Let them eat cake." However, I'll gladly accept performances as cake over nutritional performances that are good vitamins for the recordings...performances that would be Brussels sprouts; because I don't like Brussels sprouts and I seriously think I need to go to bed now. And I'm also thankful there is no cake in this house. Okay, I'm really going to go to bed now. Carry on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 And your background to make the underlined statement is? From what I've read on DCP some rights holders don't have problems with groups performing the music. But when it comes to recording and selling (IOW making $) on the product, some of them say no, hell no, or it's gonna cost you so much it ain't worth it. My understanding is DCI makes sure that corps have the right to perform the music before they go out on the field. That includes any non-DCI corps that performs at a DCI show. So the corps are not performing illegally, but that is a different issue from the recording/money making bit. (multiquote didn't work, but Jim was referring to my claim that if the Cadets could get one license they could get the other) I didn't express myself clearly. What I meant to say was that if they were responsible for one they could be responsible for the other, not that they are equally easy to get necessarily. Since I've been AWOL others have pointed out that it can be as many as 5 licenses or more. So here's my updated version of my point: Apparently the roles for obtaining different kinds of licensing fall to various people in the Cadets and DCI. So, at finals, between the two organizations, they must have been aware that they didn't have all the licensing in place, and yet they went ahead with the use. Why? Maybe they thought they were ok under fair use, but then got a threatening letter from a burly lawyer. That would be acceptable... but I don't think that's the case here because the letter refers to different clips from different sources, weren't they? Speaking of fair use, I did work at a college media library for several years, and worked with people knowledgeable in media copyright (although I am not myself an expert). I can say the following about fair use: - Educators/non-profits nearly always believe they can use media in ways that are actually illegal, believing it to be fair use. Rarely are their uses actually covered by fair use. - In no way does being an educator or a non-profit allow one greater use of copyrighted materials. (although the copyright holder may specifically allow it in the license itself.) Somebody stated that they were allowed to show tv shows to their students. This is for him/her: - Playing a documentary in your classroom you got off TV is illegal (but see this link for broadcast (not cable) shows). Yes, including public broadcasting. Documentary makers go after schools aggressively. - If you go out and buy a copy from Amazon or PBS and then show it to your class, you are still violating copyright. You have to get a public performance license, which is expensive. Note that I'm not condemning this practice since the teacher's priorities are different than the legal department's. I'm just pointing out that this attitude can not work for DCI. It may be that DCI/Cadets determined that it was fair use, and then backtracked after finals. If so, that should not happen. Keep in mind also that fair use laws can change, so I would think it foolish for DCI to allow something under fair use that is anywhere near the limit. If I forgot to respond to anyone's post sorry; remind me of it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Okay, I'm really going to go to bed now. Carry on. Another night owl! I started mine before yours was posted so I didn't see it. You make a good point, I'm gonna sleep on it! Good night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I didn't express myself clearly. What I meant to say was that if they were responsible for one they could be responsible for the other, not that they are equally easy to get necessarily. Been there, done that no problems, thanks for the response. And thanks for the info with your experiences on copyrights. Trying to learn as much as I can on this mess and just gets murkier and murkier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Thousands without incident - yes. And still Madison's Empire State and Phantom's 2008 licensing mishaps have had a far greater impact on drum corps viewing than any audio clip problem this year or last. Those were pure music issues and each cost the finals video more than a minute of judged performance time. You can't blow this out of proportion as if a handful of audio clips have deprived DVD viewers of major portions of finals. If anything, music is the bigger culprit where licensing is concerned lately. Until the CDs/DVDs are in our hands, we do not know which is the bigger impact now, do we? The rights issue generally isn't yes or no. Usually, it is a simple yes or no. There is one murky area, though, which you are about to mention here. It never has been. All of us are allowed to quote copyrighted material. All of us are allowed to perform portions of copyrighted material. We can even derive some commercial benefits while making use of copyrighted material. These are all legal so long as we make fair use. And we do. Take a look at Youtube. In addition to many outright copyright infringements are numerous examples of fair use. We do it all the time in drum corps when we quote a few bars from a song or leverage some visual arts. It's legal, normal and even good. As others have pointed out, fair use is not clearly defined. Regardless, it seems like you are disputing the wisdom of treating pre-recorded sound clips and samples with the same rigor as arranged music. I do not see any corps throwing a new song into their arranged repertoire in late July for which they lack rights. Do you object to corps being just as responsible with their use of pre-recorded sounds? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I do not see any corps throwing a new song into their arranged repertoire in late July for which they lack rights. Do you object to corps being just as responsible with their use of pre-recorded sounds? How do you know that the Cadets did not acquire the rights to use the snippets in their show? That is not the same thing as DCI acquiring the rights for the audio/DVD. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Define "fair use" and where the dividing line is between getting sued and not getting sued... That's much of the problem. Fair Use was relatively easy to interpret in old media. It's gotten too confusing in new media. Using an entire song or an entire TV show is not fair use; we can agree on that. On the other hand, the law has upheld excerpting parts "fairly." News programs do it all the time and on the fly. Part of "fair" in that case is broader public interest. The irony here is news programs are (or try to be) profit-making ventures. Many are more entertainment than news. The fair use case for the Today Show seems less compelling, but there it is. And look up "Charlie Brown Christmas" on YouTube. See for yourself how little Cadets "infringed." Cadets took a few seconds of 1,500 or so total. And at that, they took only the audio. You can watch extended minutes of the audio and video on demand. How's that fair? My point is some act as if the Cadets committed some felony, as if they made victims of both the Charlie Brown franchise and drum corps fans. They did no such thing. The only thing the Cadets did wrong was push the envelope a little, which they should. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) That's much of the problem. Fair Use was relatively easy to interpret in old media. It's gotten too confusing in new media. IMO, what's adding to the mess is a lot more outlets (Internet/etc) for potental problems. Not sure how fair use was easier in the old days. From my understanding corps were not checked that well for legal use of music because they were "under the radar". So add easier to catch non-legal use via the Internet... And look up "Charlie Brown Christmas" on YouTube. See for yourself how little Cadets "infringed." Cadets took a few seconds of 1,500 or so total. And at that, they took only the audio. You can watch extended minutes of the audio and video on demand. How's that fair? I wouldn't want to go to court and base my defense on what is on YouTube. And courts don't say "They were more wrong than you, so we're leaving you off", more like a lesser penalty. IOW - they go by legal not what we think is "fair". My point is some act as if the Cadets committed some felony, as if they made victims of both the Charlie Brown franchise and drum corps fans. They did no such thing. The only thing the Cadets did wrong was push the envelope a little, which they should. Felony no.... but leaving themselves and DCI open for possible (expensive) legal action. But if pushing the envelope results in possible legal action or removal of sections of the recordings, what is the benefit? Again I'm looking at it from the performers perspective of not being able to hear the full show. Kinda sore spot for me as it took 35 years for a recording of my first year to surface. Good news - a vid surfaced. Bad news - it was exhibition and not all the music was played. Edited October 10, 2012 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook'emCavies Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Still my favorite Christmas show! Still planning on getting the tour DVD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.