Fan Network 2014-2015?

[jjeffeory]

That's a good point, and I suspect perhaps the reasoning is that an intern or someone low on the DCI employee totem pole has a much easier job "deleting everything but Finals week" rather than "delete everything but Finals week except the last shows of these specific corps."

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but if enough people were to make a rational complaint to DCI FN, and said that they actually wanted to have those corps/shows with their subscription, DCI might make the effort. But right now I think we're all discussing a "theoretical" problem, in the sense that yes DCI omits the final performances of a small handful of OC corps, but as a subscriber I can't ever recall being frustrated because those shows aren't up 12 months or more after the performance.

I think a far more legit frustration is not having older non-finalist shows on FN. Again, I 100% understand the reasoning behind that decision, but as a FN subscriber I would MUCH rather see the 13th or 14th place corps from 1997 than 2013 BDC

You're right about the non-finalist shows. That's a discussion that we've been having in another forum, and there are some incredible shows that aren't in finals. Particularly, there's a group of corps from one year that we've been discussing, where you could argue for 3 other corps to make finals. It was nice that we could see the videos of these other corps, but we couldn't do it on the fan network, which is where I would have preferred to see them.

Another thing; the younger fans, some of who would go back and soak up everything available, are missing out on a variety of shows and ideas that were good, but just missed finals.

[Jeff Ream]

That's a good point, and I suspect perhaps the reasoning is that an intern or someone low on the DCI employee totem pole has a much easier job "deleting everything but Finals week" rather than "delete everything but Finals week except the last shows of these specific corps."

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but if enough people were to make a rational complaint to DCI FN, and said that they actually wanted to have those corps/shows with their subscription, DCI might make the effort. But right now I think we're all discussing a "theoretical" problem, in the sense that yes DCI omits the final performances of a small handful of OC corps, but as a subscriber I can't ever recall being frustrated because those shows aren't up 12 months or more after the performance.

I think a far more legit frustration is not having older non-finalist shows on FN. Again, I 100% understand the reasoning behind that decision, but as a FN subscriber I would MUCH rather see the 13th or 14th place corps from 1997 than 2013 BDC

Amen. there have been some great non finalist shows i'd much rather see

[Pete Freedman]

and to be super blunt, how many FN fans will complain that VK 2012, or BDC 2011 are no long available for FN? I suspect the fans that care that much likely had a family member/friend marching and probably have their own media of the shows.

Thus making FN catering to those very small amounts of FN subscribers not an issue

Yes, it's an issue. How would the members of VK, BDC, etc. have "their own media"? Did they hire a camera crew and audio crew? Do you think the mom-held shaky-cam really conveys the artistic intent of the designers?

And as long as we're being super blunt, I think we can generally agree that DCI does essentially no marketing or market research. So they almost certainly have no idea what affect decisions like this have on anything.

It's likely that the only real data they have (that we don't) is the actual number/rate of views of those shows. Maybe nobody has ever watched a pre-finals week show - except, I have, so I know that's not true. And I wasn't in those corps nor competed against them. So, in lieu of actual evidence that the views of those shows are essentially zero, I'd say they are applying brick-and-mortar logic that obsesses over shelf space.

I mean, yes the G7 claim that the top corps essentially carry the activity, but even they don't claim the lower corps have no popularity at all.

[flammaster]

I wish all corps could afford to have Skywalker ranch come out and record their A and B corps.

If I hit the lottery I would make a lot of stuff happen with drum corps for sure!

[jjeffeory]

Yes, it's an issue. How would the members of VK, BDC, etc. have "their own media"? Did they hire a camera crew and audio crew? Do you think the mom-held shaky-cam really conveys the artistic intent of the designers?

And as long as we're being super blunt, I think we can generally agree that DCI does essentially no marketing or market research. So they almost certainly have no idea what affect decisions like this have on anything.

It's likely that the only real data they have (that we don't) is the actual number/rate of views of those shows. Maybe nobody has ever watched a pre-finals week show - except, I have, so I know that's not true. And I wasn't in those corps nor competed against them. So, in lieu of actual evidence that the views of those shows are essentially zero, I'd say they are applying brick-and-mortar logic that obsesses over shelf space.

I mean, yes the G7 claim that the top corps essentially carry the activity, but even they don't claim the lower corps have no popularity at all.

I quite frequently watched pre finals shows too, so there's two of us.

[drumcat]

Please allow me to speculate a little bit...

First, I don't know what if anything was pulled. I do know for a fact that CDNs charge a monthly rate for storage. CDNs also charge a higher rate for storage in certain cases because of how CDNs work.

For example, it's not just like S3 that's mirrored once or twice. CDNs are geographically distributed so you have good performance. This means that you might have a video stored in 50 or 100 places. That's why they play quickly in your geographic area and with good quality; they are distributed. So as for pricing, you won't want to do a direct comparison to simple file storage.

As for the non-Finalist shows, I would imagine that you guys are barking up the wrong tree. It isn't cost prohibitive; everyone seems to come to that logical conclusion... thus, there's that other Licensing tree... one might notice that those non-Finalist shows weren't redone for the Legacy collections. As such, I can imagine that your 15th place show from the mid-1980s isn't so much a minor cost to post, but a greater risk of liability for having posted it.

Until and unless the risk of posting some of those older shows with less licensing risk becomes less risky, it probably has no real chance of becoming part of that collection. Copyright laws being what they are, it would seem easy to say that the 3 subscriptions the '97 Plum Jostlers bring in aren't worth the possibility of being sued.

[/speculation]

[jjeffeory]

Please allow me to speculate a little bit...

First, I don't know what if anything was pulled. I do know for a fact that CDNs charge a monthly rate for storage. CDNs also charge a higher rate for storage in certain cases because of how CDNs work.

For example, it's not just like S3 that's mirrored once or twice. CDNs are geographically distributed so you have good performance. This means that you might have a video stored in 50 or 100 places. That's why they play quickly in your geographic area and with good quality; they are distributed. So as for pricing, you won't want to do a direct comparison to simple file storage.

As for the non-Finalist shows, I would imagine that you guys are barking up the wrong tree. It isn't cost prohibitive; everyone seems to come to that logical conclusion... thus, there's that other Licensing tree... one might notice that those non-Finalist shows weren't redone for the Legacy collections. As such, I can imagine that your 15th place show from the mid-1980s isn't so much a minor cost to post, but a greater risk of liability for having posted it.

Until and unless the risk of posting some of those older shows with less licensing risk becomes less risky, it probably has no real chance of becoming part of that collection. Copyright laws being what they are, it would seem easy to say that the 3 subscriptions the '97 Plum Jostlers bring in aren't worth the possibility of being sued.

[/speculation]

I understand all of that; my rough analysis was simply a very rough outline to show the basic costs and the likely storage needs of storing 1 season of video. It didn't delve into the processing of raw video into a suitable codec or anything else interesting...

Unless DCI has implemented the physical infrastructure to distribute the content everywhere, I'm not sure that DCI would be worrying so much about the CDN aspect directly, it would be Brightcove that would be concerned with that specific aspect of the technology, and the costs would be passed through to DCI in a service package. Really not much of a need to bring that up here because that's not how Brightcove prices things. To their customers (DCI) the videos are simply "in the cloud". So, you "might" have these videos storage in 50 or 100 places with Brightcove, but brightcove has that figured into DCI's service plan and it is not a 1:1 price comparison. I know this aspect of technology interesting to some, but others have glossy eyes right now. What you're writing makes it sound like it's really expensive, and it's a little expensive, but it's obviously worth the expense for pay for the services and added a few hundred gigabytes of data is no big deal. It's a recurring service expense for DCI, instead of a purchase 1 time purchase, which is very much in vogue with software these days. ...and it looks like DCI gets "help" with paying for that service from Wgi, DCA, Indiana State School Music Association, and DCUK. That's smart. Not trying to be difficult, but my degrees are in technology and I've dealt with Brightcove in the past for this type of thing too.

Yes, we know that licensing is the excuse given for not putting up the non-finalists. I wonder how many non-finalists corps have public domain pieces in their shows. I mean, the licensing angle is the tired excuse and I wonder who has looked into this. It just seems like it's not worth the time and effort for DCI to put their older shows on, and they won't bother looking into it because it's just easier to say "copyright" and move on. I don't completely buy the corporate speak.

[perc2100]

As for the non-Finalist shows, I would imagine that you guys are barking up the wrong tree. It isn't cost prohibitive; everyone seems to come to that logical conclusion... thus, there's that other Licensing tree... one might notice that those non-Finalist shows weren't redone for the Legacy collections. As such, I can imagine that your 15th place show from the mid-1980s isn't so much a minor cost to post, but a greater risk of liability for having posted it.

Until and unless the risk of posting some of those older shows with less licensing risk becomes less risky, it probably has no real chance of becoming part of that collection. Copyright laws being what they are, it would seem easy to say that the 3 subscriptions the '97 Plum Jostlers bring in aren't worth the possibility of being sued.

[/speculation]

Yeah, I never assumed it was a cost-thing from the standpoint of keeping the files around; I assume the costs are ALL about the licensing fees. I marched in a WGI PIW unit that did a show that TOTALLY violated many copy rights! As a result, I should've kept better track of my VHS tape, because there is no way it will ever see the light of day again. I suspect there are plenty of similar stories with older non-Finalist shows, and I 100% get why DCI would not want to spend the resources there. I doubt old-school Dutchboy or Kiwanis Kavaliers would bring in any extra revenue for DCI, but would probably cause an expenditure.

Oh well; at this point in my life, I'm very thankful for what we do have. DCI does a pretty good job with FN and if I can afford the service I will again buy it this season

** note: I'm having a baby this summer, my wife & I are teachers & money is kinda tight so if anyone is looking for an awesome baby-shower gift, a PS4 would rule; if anyone is looking to give me two baby-shower gifts, a PS4 and a FN subscription would be awesome - then it's party at my house on show nights!

[jjeffeory]

Yeah, I never assumed it was a cost-thing from the standpoint of keeping the files around; I assume the costs are ALL about the licensing fees. I marched in a WGI PIW unit that did a show that TOTALLY violated many copy rights! As a result, I should've kept better track of my VHS tape, because there is no way it will ever see the light of day again. I suspect there are plenty of similar stories with older non-Finalist shows, and I 100% get why DCI would not want to spend the resources there. I doubt old-school Dutchboy or Kiwanis Kavaliers would bring in any extra revenue for DCI, but would probably cause an expenditure.

Oh well; at this point in my life, I'm very thankful for what we do have. DCI does a pretty good job with FN and if I can afford the service I will again buy it this season

** note: I'm having a baby this summer, my wife & I are teachers & money is kinda tight so if anyone is looking for an awesome baby-shower gift, a PS4 would rule; if anyone is looking to give me two baby-shower gifts, a PS4 and a FN subscription would be awesome - then it's party at my house on show nights!

Oh man, I would if I could. I know how expensive it is to live in Southern California. I used my Amex points to get my PS4 ( well I got a Wii U too). Lots of points, but I love it!

[cixelsyd]

That's a good point, and I suspect perhaps the reasoning is that an intern or someone low on the DCI employee totem pole has a much easier job "deleting everything but Finals week" rather than "delete everything but Finals week except the last shows of these specific corps."

How hard is that, really?