Over-the-Top DCI YOUTUBE Copyright Slap-Down

[Michael Boo]

There's a rule about doing THAT in the stands, too.

Speak up, or throw up?

:tongue:/>/>

Why do you think I'm always given my own perch?

[Slingerland]

Question: So why don't the copywrite holders of any popular song/artist request that videos of their song artist be pulled? Millions of videos exist on You Tube of famous artists singing & performing famous songs.

Even though they show no profit (trust me...), DCI is still a $10 million a year organization. If you're a lawyer working for Copyright owner A, you can sue the high school kid with a 97 Civic sitting in his driveway, or you can sue "the $10 million a year company." One is worth pursuing, because they could ostensibly offer a settlement if you found the right judge, the other isn't, because his net worth is less than the price of a Domino's pizza.

In an ideal world, the rights for every corps would be such that they'd have all the mechanical rights in place they need to allow fan vids to help promote their product. That ideal world simply doesn't exist, at present.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Slingerland

[JimF-LowBari]

Question: So why don't the copywrite holders of any popular song/artist request that videos of their song artist be pulled? Millions of videos exist on You Tube of famous artists singing & performing famous songs.

Guessing some do and some don't. Problem is if a copyright holder wants to make an example of some poor slob who posted illegally...... and you're that poor slob. IOW - it wouldn't matter if 999,999 out of a million don't take legal action if you're that 1 in a million.

[jasgre2000]

A few things

1) to add to your thoughts, DCI also has to worry about making nice with copy right holders. If copy right holders perceive DCI as an organization that doesn't really care much about defending copy rights, relationships could go south. Is DCI playing safe? Maybe. But in a world where it becomes more and more difficult to attain all necessary clearances for organizations whose work is primarily using others' copy righted creations, perhaps it's prudent for DCI to be playing it safe.

2) as far as DCI taking down "crappy" videos, remember that it's not just DCI who patrols youtube: it's also corps staffers. It is VERY easy to get video pulled from youtube, as youtube generally plays it safe and yanks the video at claims of copy right infringement. I've known staffers who have seen unauthorized "bootleg" videos up on youtube of a June show and then got the video pulled quickly because the quality of the show was not up to a performance standard they would want. It happens, and it probably happens more than some might think.

Folks can argue law on here all they want, and talk about the probability of DCI being sued, or winning a law suit. But it's more likely DCI is playing it safe, and it's a LOT easier to play it safe and KNOW you have no worries of liability, than to roll the dice.

Not to mention the fact that DCI makes money with Fan Network and anyone can watch any Finalist show from the past several decades for a nominal cost. If we're complaining about not being able to watch drum corps for free, we lose that argument out of sheer logic: we're not entitled to see drum corps for free, and DCI has 100% obligation to protect their best interests (which includes financial). Upset because you can't email a link of your kid to family members? Post the video to a private website you've created and send them the link; burn the performance to DVD and snail mail it to family; go through the youtube work-arounds mentioned elsewhere. There are plenty of solutions rather than whining and acting like self-entitled children.

I think this is exactly right. As someone else mentioned, DCI might have contractual obligations to monitor copyright infringement of their fans too. This is probably more about making composers and other rights holders feel safe about licensing their music than anything else. I personally think that is a little silly (what kind of economic damage is the composer really going to face from a drum corps youtube video? Is a band not going to want to play a certain piece because there is a video of it on youtube? I think the opposite would be true.). I completely understand that DCI might feel it is a necessary thing to do to make licensors feel comfortable.

Edited July 4, 2013 by jasgre2000

[chris ncsu]

Man, this thread is still going?

[perc2100]

Question: So why don't the copywrite holders of any popular song/artist request that videos of their song artist be pulled? Millions of videos exist on You Tube of famous artists singing & performing famous songs.

Those types of videos do get pulled occasionally. It's hard for copy right holders to monitor the situation 24/7, but they do check in and pull stuff from time to time (same with film studios).

Of course, they have a lot less to lose, since some of those artists make more in a calendar year than DCI makes in a decade...

[perc2100]

I personally think that is a little silly (what kind of economic damage is the composer really going to face from a drum corps youtube video? Is a band not going to want to play a certain piece because there is a video of it on youtube? I think the opposite would be true.). I completely understand that DCI might feel it is a necessary thing to do to make licensors feel comfortable.

Talking to some composers who have had history with their pieces being arranged for drum corps, (some of them have had great experiences, some of them would deem their experiences "embarrassing"), I've gotten the sense it is more about releasing control and letting others mess with and interpret (or reinterpret) their work than financial stuff.

For example, John Williams at some point got tired of hearing "hack" arrangers chop up and mess with his work, and now either won't release his stuff to be arranged or will charge a HUGE fee + ask for final approval. He also has an exclusive arrangement deal with publishing companies, and will tell people interested to buy those.

One could look at it from this standpoint maybe:

* if a composer/copy right holder wants to grant permission to Cadets to use their music, they can collect their fees from Cadets or DCI and go about their business and not think about it after cashing the check

* if the composer sees a video on youtube (say, a colleague forwarding the video saying, "hey: here's Cadets doing your music!"), and he hates what Cadets are doing with it, he might not let high schools or drum corps use his material again. He could even revoke permission of sync rights or something, making it more difficult for Cadets to keep the rights in order to sell legacy recordings in the future.

* or maybe other composers see the video because they're friends with the composer, and want to see what Cadets are doing do their friends art. They watch the video and are horrified with what Cadets are doing with his friends music, and they decide they won't let other corps or arrangers use their work. Maybe they talk to other colleagues, and scare of other composers from giving permission to organizations using their work.

There are plenty of hypothetical scenarios, and a lot of them are maybe far-fetched. But DCI is in a very precarious place where they can't really afford to play fast & loose with copy rights holders, especially in an age where it gets more and more difficult to secure all the necessary rights. Rights holders don't need an excuse to change lots of money for use of their work, and I can understand DCI and its corps wanting to walk on egg shells in order to maintain the best possible relationship with copy rights holders.

[jasgre2000]

Talking to some composers who have had history with their pieces being arranged for drum corps, (some of them have had great experiences, some of them would deem their experiences "embarrassing"), I've gotten the sense it is more about releasing control and letting others mess with and interpret (or reinterpret) their work than financial stuff.

For example, John Williams at some point got tired of hearing "hack" arrangers chop up and mess with his work, and now either won't release his stuff to be arranged or will charge a HUGE fee + ask for final approval. He also has an exclusive arrangement deal with publishing companies, and will tell people interested to buy those.

One could look at it from this standpoint maybe:

* if a composer/copy right holder wants to grant permission to Cadets to use their music, they can collect their fees from Cadets or DCI and go about their business and not think about it after cashing the check

* if the composer sees a video on youtube (say, a colleague forwarding the video saying, "hey: here's Cadets doing your music!"), and he hates what Cadets are doing with it, he might not let high schools or drum corps use his material again. He could even revoke permission of sync rights or something, making it more difficult for Cadets to keep the rights in order to sell legacy recordings in the future.

* or maybe other composers see the video because they're friends with the composer, and want to see what Cadets are doing do their friends art. They watch the video and are horrified with what Cadets are doing with his friends music, and they decide they won't let other corps or arrangers use their work. Maybe they talk to other colleagues, and scare of other composers from giving permission to organizations using their work.

There are plenty of hypothetical scenarios, and a lot of them are maybe far-fetched. But DCI is in a very precarious place where they can't really afford to play fast & loose with copy rights holders, especially in an age where it gets more and more difficult to secure all the necessary rights. Rights holders don't need an excuse to change lots of money for use of their work, and I can understand DCI and its corps wanting to walk on egg shells in order to maintain the best possible relationship with copy rights holders.

That seems a bit silly to me. It seems like the best solution to help composers feel more comfortable about licensing their work is to do good arrangements that respect the source material ... not tell them that we may ruin your art, but don't worry we will do everything we can to make sure no one sees how we ruined it. DCI cannot be successful if it has to try to avoid being seen in order to get the licenses it needs.

[bluesman]

Sooner or later DCI is going to have to reconcile the reality of the social media explosion, in the early days of social media the concert promoters, performers etc tried to control it, but now they have embraced it as they found out they got more exposure which resulted in more revenues to the point they are using social media to launch new songs, events etc.....in a effort to use it to their advantage.

I understand their rational but in reality does a 1984 video of a former member corps who is folded, really a hurting dci if its posted and 24 people watch it? Have they done studies to see if having homemade videos on youtube hurt sales of performances (DVD/MPGS) or does it boost them up more? Are people who watch youtube really a dvd buying customer or are they just looking and will never buy anything, but they might go to a drum corps show if they like what they see.... also it gives our activity a historical window that DCI can't, and doesn't cost dci anything. People like seeing corps from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, 80s of corps no longer and were not a dci member or in their top 25.....

I completely agree. Who is harmed when a video of a 1982 prelim performance of a corps that folded in 1983, performing music that is public domain, with music and video that is as much as 6 count out of sync shows up on youtube? I can see why there might some who are embarrassed by the technical problems syncing sound and video. But wasn't that some Canadians problem .....eh?

[soccerguy315]

I know this is not related to the YouTube video issue...but I heard that BAC sold general admission tickets on Groupon to bring in over 400 new fans that otherwise would not have attended to a record crowd in New Haven...This is the type of thinking and outside the box marketing that DCI should be exploring rather than maintaining their status quo of trying to CONTROL the digital media which is obviously not doing anything to "promote" the activity.

this is awesome! thanks for sharing. Great to see someone bringing in new fans!