Cadets show to be edited

[JimF-LowBari]

Maybe DCI should start asking corps to NOT use samples and voice overs on Thursday or Friday of finals week. That way they can get a clean recording on the books without the potentially troublesome material?

Having enough problems with non-voice (IOW music) material over the last few years too.....

Edited September 29, 2012 by JimF-LowBari

[VOReason]

While I understand the importance of protecting copyrighted materials, it does seem a tad silly to have to cut through all this legalese to present an approx. 30 second voiceover to what amounts to a very limited, niche audience in a freakin' marching band show. Ain't like they're using the snippet during Dancing with the Stars!

[skevinp]

While I understand the importance of protecting copyrighted materials, it does seem a tad silly to have to cut through all this legalese to present an approx. 30 second voiceover to what amounts to a very limited, niche audience in a freakin' marching band show. Ain't like they're using the snippet during Dancing with the Stars!

Only a few seconds with respect to any one piece of source material. So what are the damages of such a small use in such a small market? The entire DCI audience is a blip on their screen, and even within that audience it seems very unlikely that anyone will say 'Oh I don't need to see it on TV this year because I already heard 5 seconds of it 4 months ago' and thuse cost them ad revenue.

It seems to me the only worthwhile concern in this sort of case would be anything that portrays their brand in an undesirable light, which could happen if they let everyone do it and of course the worst stuff would be what ends up going beyond the originally small audience, and so they probably say 'no' as a matter of course on something so small it doesn't justify the resources of looking into.

Which also suggests that, if no real harm has been done, they would not go after DCI even if it did use the quotes without permission, as there is no interest that would justify the time and money cost of litigation.

But it may be that DCI is also concerned about staying in the good graces of entities whose permissions will have to be asked many times in the future and, for that reason, is going to exercise and abundance of caution.

[JimF-LowBari]

Only a few seconds with respect to any one piece of source material. So what are the damages of such a small use in such a small market? The entire DCI audience is a blip on their screen, and even within that audience it seems very unlikely that anyone will say 'Oh I don't need to see it on TV this year because I already heard 5 seconds of it 4 months ago' and thuse cost them ad revenue.

It seems to me the only worthwhile concern in this sort of case would be anything that portrays their brand in an undesirable light, which could happen if they let everyone do it and of course the worst stuff would be what ends up going beyond the originally small audience, and so they probably say 'no' as a matter of course on something so small it doesn't justify the resources of looking into.

Which also suggests that, if no real harm has been done, they would not go after DCI even if it did use the quotes without permission, as there is no interest that would justify the time and money cost of litigation.

But it may be that DCI is also concerned about staying in the good graces of entities whose permissions will have to be asked many times in the future and, for that reason, is going to exercise and abundance of caution.

DCI and the corps involved could get sued even if no harm was done or intended. Know of some people who #### near lost all defending themselves against suits that were frivilous or the person suing had no chance of winning. In these cases, the court and lawyer costs were hurting the people very deeply. In these sue me-sue you days of the legal system, not to mention a way for someone to make a buck in tough economic days, DCI should be VERY careful. If someone could make a buck then they could consider it very "worthwhile".

The law is supposed to be applied equally no matter if it's some "looks like band" circuit with a small audience or a Fortune 500 company with tons of exposure, both are held to the same level of accountibility. IOW - both would be in court....

Edited September 29, 2012 by JimF-LowBari

[skevinp]

DCI and the corps involved could get sued even if no harm was done or intended. Know of some people who #### near lost all defending themselves against suits that were frivilous or the person suing had no chance of winning. In these cases, the court and lawyer costs were hurting the people very deeply. In these sue me-sue you days of the legal system, not to mention a way for someone to make a buck in tough economic days, DCI should be VERY careful. If someone could make a buck then they could consider it very "worthwhile".

The law is supposed to be applied equally no matter if it's some "looks like band" circuit with a small audience or a Fortune 500 company with tons of exposure, both are held to the same level of accountibility. IOW - both would be in court....

I wasn't necessarily saying it would be frivolous on their part (though it might be close to the line) but just that they may not have any real interest in pursuing it, or at least not one that justifies the hassle and expense.

In any case, frivolous suits are usually brought by smaller entities against larger entities who pay them off with a settlement because it is easier and cheaper than litigation. Or sometimes they are brought by misguided people who really believe they aren't frivolous, but those are usually small time as well.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I was assuming the copyright holders in this case are not small at all, and would have little interest in spending more money on a lawsuit with only a small amount of money likely to be gained even if they win. It is true that some companies are more relentless without regard to individual cost benefit so as to maintain a reputation that acts as a deterrent, but even then there normally is a strong general interest that justifies the expense of such a policy when applied to a definable type of circumstances.

As for the law being applied equally, it is true there is an element of copyright law that is criminal, but it is generally a matter of civil law. I think the purpose of civil law is to give people a right to seek recovery if they have a significant enough interest in doing so, not to force them to. A civil law is applied equally if everyone has that right equally, regardless of whether they pursue it or not. I think practicality is actually built into the civil system and that is not such a bad or unjust thing in itself.

[JimF-LowBari]

Understand you better now. In your post I'd worry about an entity trying to make an example out of DCI. One reason to go after DCI is it might be easier to sue DCI than another larger entity (or one with a lot of lawyers).

Then there is what I call the "Mad Magazine" defense I read about years ago. Mad was using the image of Alfred E Neuman and there was a trademarked (copyrighted?) image of that face from decades past. The sons(?) of the deceased holder were suing for infringement and asking big bucks. Mad won the case because they proved the "face" had been used before with the copyright owners knowing about it. BUT... the holders did nothing and so "failed to protect the copyright". They didn't sue before because no big money was involved. In Mads case there was money so the suit was initiated and lost.

Not a lawyer but wondering if a suit or complaint might be filed just to "protect the copyright".

Edited September 29, 2012 by JimF-LowBari

[tigerwoods_2001]

Or have someone from the corps say it, and not use the original...maybe?

There was a question on this thread that I don't think got answered yet. Editing out the voice, also edits out ALL audio, doesn't it? Not just the voice?

This is disappointing..I thought we had learned our lesson...

That's the way it's been done in the past. So probably no audio until the Gloria hit.

[tigerwoods_2001]

When I used to interview figure skaters, I was sometimes at shows that were being recorded for later television broadcast. Those shows that were not judged competitions were not free of falls and other tumbles. After the public performance, the skaters who wanted to clean up something they did would come out and one by one would take turns skating to that section of the music. The clean run of the troublesome spot in their show would then be spliced into the video for broadcast.

Perhaps...and I'm only suggesting this as a possibility...corps could apply for a do-over of such possible voice-over segments of their shows for Thursday's Prelims. They would have to apply for this prior to the final show that determines the Prelims line-up so the schedule could be modified. Each applicant would receive one extra minute upon completing their show for the recorded do-over, which would be done in standstill formation. (If it's a part of the drill where the horns are facing backwards, they could just turn around to play, and if the drums are off in a corner, they could set up there.) And then, while recording, the guard could be moving sets and other stuff off the field. Equipment tractors would have to be silenced during this time.

Not every corps would need this, and it would only be for the segments of the show using copyrighted audio material. So...I'm guessing it would add just a few minutes to the entire contest, which I admit is already pretty long. I know this could cause a situation with the theater broadcast, but I believe that could be worked out.

If a corps didn't need the full minute, the next corps could start set-up as soon as possible. If they needed more, they could apply for an extension. But again, it would have to be done prior to the show that determines the Prelims schedule so that schedule would accommodate the extra time. The show seldom runs to the exact timing, anyhow.

If a corps in the final fifteen groups that is on the theater broadcast needs the extra time, Rondinaro and DeLucia can vamp on each other's hair.

I like the idea, but I rather them run that segment(s) in the drill because the sound will be different because of the staging and proximity to the mics. That would probably be easier for the sound editors to deal with.

[Michael Boo]

I like the idea, but I rather them run that segment(s) in the drill because the sound will be different because of the staging and proximity to the mics. That would probably be easier for the sound editors to deal with.

And would require substantially more time for setting up the drill. My idea is based on trying to keep the show running pretty much on schedule, and it might even be impractical to build in the extra time my more modest proposal would require. Typically, a show has to be done by midnight or else huge overtime fees kick in. (I don't know this is the case for LOS, but it has been for other venues.) To allow for the time it would take for corps to set up perhaps multiple forms for multiple copyright approval concerns could really extend the show too long to make the plan palatable to the people who would have to approve this sort of thing...and even my idea is pretty much unlikely to garner much support from those who have to keep things running on time.

We may just have to accept that as long as there are issues with copyrighted material, there will be "imperfect" CD and DVD recordings. And even without the voice-overs, there are going to be instances when just plain music has to be excised because a specific permission didn't come through.

[gak27]

We may just have to accept that as long as there are issues with copyrighted material, there will be "imperfect" CD and DVD recordings. And even without the voice-overs, there are going to be instances when just plain music has to be excised because a specific permission didn't come through.

So it will become even more important in the weeks following Finals to frantically scour "that web site" and download all those unauthorized full show postings before they get taken down...just in case ...

Sigh...