More Licensing Issues

[Pete Freedman]

G7?

Are you suggesting that some of the G7 are deliberately messing up the DCI media market as a prelude to their attempt to create their own? Maybe you weren't suggesting that, but it's an intriguing idea, and a new one on this thread. It's quite a coincidence that both the corps that co-wrote the G7 document have now messed up DCI's income stream, while (allegedly) creating their separate Music in Motion organization in the background. I think we need to talk about this...

[Pete Freedman]

A business, a third party brokerage type business in this case, is about making money; and there is a boat load of work with very little profit to be made in helping marching units secure those licenses beyond securing permission to arrange (seeking permission to arrange is relatively easy). So, why would a third party want to dedicate themselves to securing those licenses for the marching arts if it does not yield much profit?

I think this is a good question, and the short answer is that where there are a large number of similar situations, each being negotiated separately and leading to similar results, there is inefficiency. So, there is room for streamlining that process. As to profit, I can think of at least two models:

1. If it's a for-profit, it may not need a very big cut of the action to make it worthwhile. Given that it's an automated system, the cost per transaction is lower than it costs currently for the rights holders to negotiate each transaction. So they should be able to charge a smaller fee per transaction than the rights holders were paying their staff.

2. It could be a non-profit, which would save a little in not having to turn a profit, and save a lot in not having to pay taxes. Employees would still be paid of course, including the people in charge.

I can think of three models for the organization's parenting:

A. It is supported by the marching arts organizations themselves, and tries to get buy-in from the various rights holders.

B. It is started by one or more of the rights holders themselves - in other words, pitch it to the rights holders as something that they can own, while saving them the effort in selling these licenses. If that works, as units gravitate to the service, other rights holders sign on. Kind of like the way Travelocity was started by one airline, and the rest had to sign on.

C. An independent for-profit or non-profit.

Any of these models could be successful or unsuccessful, based on lots of information I don't have. Copycat may have tried this and found the rights holders unwilling.

[3rd Glasgow BB]

Are you suggesting that some of the G7 are deliberately messing up the DCI media market as a prelude to their attempt to create their own? Maybe you weren't suggesting that, but it's an intriguing idea, and a new one on this thread. It's quite a coincidence that both the corps that co-wrote the G7 document have now messed up DCI's income stream, while (allegedly) creating their separate Music in Motion organization in the background. I think we need to talk about this...

I may just be mischief making but if you did have a suspicious mind then it kind of makes sense.

The G7 are not going away, they want it all and who's to say this isn't part of their attempt to undermine DCI?

[perc2100]

Are you suggesting that some of the G7 are deliberately messing up the DCI media market as a prelude to their attempt to create their own? Maybe you weren't suggesting that, but it's an intriguing idea, and a new one on this thread. It's quite a coincidence that both the corps that co-wrote the G7 document have now messed up DCI's income stream, while (allegedly) creating their separate Music in Motion organization in the background. I think we need to talk about this...

I REALLY think you give people too much credit. With all of the things on a corps director's plate during any given summer, I can't imagine, say, Hoppy, actively thinking "hey, we can totally screw up DCI's revenue stream if we sample something we know we'll never get the rights to!"

I think this is clearly all about "we need to squeeze every last .1 out of the effect caption, regardless of after-the-season ramifications regarding archival material." Corps directors & designers are all about gaining a competitive edge, and I suspect that for the most part designers and directors are OK with the thought of gaining an edge at the expense of damaging the archival products.

[Lead]

I REALLY think you give people too much credit. With all of the things on a corps director's plate during any given summer, I can't imagine, say, Hoppy, actively thinking "hey, we can totally screw up DCI's revenue stream if we sample something we know we'll never get the rights to!"

I think this is clearly all about "we need to squeeze every last .1 out of the effect caption, regardless of after-the-season ramifications regarding archival material." Corps directors & designers are all about gaining a competitive edge, and I suspect that for the most part designers and directors are OK with the thought of gaining an edge at the expense of damaging the archival products.

I completely agree. This is not about undermining anything, remove your tinfoil hats, please

[Pete Freedman]

I completely agree. This is not about undermining anything, remove your tinfoil hats, please

Well, there are two ways it could go. One way is the conspiracy theory as outlined above (and the tinfoil hat is so comfy!).

The other is a weaker form in which Hoppy says, "I know DCI won't be able to get sync rights for Peanuts material, but I don't really care anymore since we may be splitting off from them anyway." where in prior years he might not have allowed something that had no chance of getting approval. (Of course, that's assuming he would have cared at all in prior years).

[Stu]

I think this is a good question, and the short answer is that where there are a large number of similar situations, each being negotiated separately and leading to similar results, there is inefficiency. So, there is room for streamlining that process. As to profit, I can think of at least two models:

1. If it's a for-profit, it may not need a very big cut of the action to make it worthwhile. Given that it's an automated system, the cost per transaction is lower than it costs currently for the rights holders to negotiate each transaction. So they should be able to charge a smaller fee per transaction than the rights holders were paying their staff.

2. It could be a non-profit, which would save a little in not having to turn a profit, and save a lot in not having to pay taxes. Employees would still be paid of course, including the people in charge.

I can think of three models for the organization's parenting:

A. It is supported by the marching arts organizations themselves, and tries to get buy-in from the various rights holders.

B. It is started by one or more of the rights holders themselves - in other words, pitch it to the rights holders as something that they can own, while saving them the effort in selling these licenses. If that works, as units gravitate to the service, other rights holders sign on. Kind of like the way Travelocity was started by one airline, and the rest had to sign on.

C. An independent for-profit or non-profit.

Any of these models could be successful or unsuccessful, based on lots of information I don't have. Copycat may have tried this and found the rights holders unwilling.

a) Profit which is based on Low Cost Per Transaction requires an ocean load of transactions to become worthwhile (see Paypal). There are not that many marching organizations in the musical grand scheme of things to make such a stand alone brokerage endeavor worthwhile.

b) However, I could see something like a license brokerage being a small part of something bigger and diverse like System Blue; but again not as a stand alone service.

c) What was the net profit for Copycat this past year? That is a telling question.

[Jeff Ream]

While I have previously stated that we need serious copyright reform in America, this also reflects poorly on the drum corps who don't secure clearances ahead of time. Why put something on the field that you have not secured performance and recording rights to? Just to #### off fans and hurt DCI's merchandising efforts? Is it more important to "be creative" than address these other factors?

you'll find in any endeavour, often the creative types could give a #### about the financial part. they're more worried about their "art"

[Jeff Ream]

Well, there are two ways it could go. One way is the conspiracy theory as outlined above (and the tinfoil hat is so comfy!).

The other is a weaker form in which Hoppy says, "I know DCI won't be able to get sync rights for Peanuts material, but I don't really care anymore since we may be splitting off from them anyway." where in prior years he might not have allowed something that had no chance of getting approval. (Of course, that's assuming he would have cared at all in prior years).

yeah, but here's the thing.....Hop needs every penny he can get for YEA, so I don't see him going this route. Surely he Doesn't think BD isn't going to pay for all of the bills Hop creates when they split.

well hopefully for Dave Gibbs heart he doesn't

[perc2100]

Well, there are two ways it could go. One way is the conspiracy theory as outlined above (and the tinfoil hat is so comfy!).

The other is a weaker form in which Hoppy says, "I know DCI won't be able to get sync rights for Peanuts material, but I don't really care anymore since we may be splitting off from them anyway." where in prior years he might not have allowed something that had no chance of getting approval. (Of course, that's assuming he would have cared at all in prior years).

Again, I REALLY think people give these guys (Hoppy, other DCI directors) FAR too much credit. I almost think Hop would agree with me on this one, but no offense meant to him or other directors. But I'm pretty sure that none of the DCI directors are thinking deviously, or even tacitly malicious as outlined in Mr. Freedman's post.

Again, I think this is clearly all about "we need to squeeze every last .1 out of the effect caption, regardless of after-the-season ramifications regarding archival material." Corps directors & designers are all about gaining a competitive edge, and I suspect that for the most part designers and directors are OK with the thought of gaining an edge at the expense of damaging the archival products. Most human beings concern themselves mainly with the here and now, sometimes at the expense of 'down the road' ramifications. Obviously DCI doesn't seem to stress to heavily that this is a big deal and corps should not do this, so why would directors & designers not concern themselves with competitive advantage/live performance?