jjeffeory Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I'd imagine WGI's may be the harshest of them all. I mean on their site you can even find the "do not try" list, and the "if you really want to, here's the headaches and timelines involved" list. My point is that copyright is "the" go to excuse given on here for when something like this is brought up, and it may or may not be the issue, or it may be something else. Doesn't matter, copyright is just the easiest thing to get people to be quiet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 well...look at John Williams. he won't license. Now, how many corps did his stuff over the years? So yes, i can imagine licensing being a huge headache and cost, especially in the past when more popular tunes were used. That does essentially remove his music from the activity nowadays. But it has little effect on recordings from back when corps were allowed to play his music. John Williams cannot go back in time and stop Madison and North Star from playing Star Wars in 1978. Once it is out there, the rights to obtain streaming and mechanical licenses are guaranteed by law. Synchronization licensing is different, but that only affects video hard copies/downloads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 My point is that copyright is "the" go to excuse given on here for when something like this is brought up, and it may or may not be the issue, or it may be something else. Doesn't matter, copyright is just the easiest thing to get people to be quiet. It's also the "excuse" (or reasoning, to be more apt) for corps' performances getting chopped up on media (Boston's Angelou poetry last year), cut (Scout's "Empire..." from a few years ago), or flat out excluded (BD last year on non-USA Blu-ray/DVDs). It's a MAJOR issue and expense in this industry: one that is often maybe not worth the time/effort/money in order to appease a minority of fan base. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmit26 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I plan to bite the bullet and join the FN for the first time this year. I've always just purchased the Blu-Ray and CDs in the past. I notice there is no option for Blu-Ray plus CDs plus FN. Does the Finals APD available as part of the package make purchasing the CDs not worthwhile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Hey, just a follow up... First, I didn't ever intend to portray Brightcove storage as 50x more expensive; just simply not the same as simple storage. I have no idea how the two compare exactly, and don't want to have a nerd throw down on that whole thing. I just simply wanted to point out that DCI get charged for the size of their library per-terabyte. That's all. As for licensing, I didn't want to stir the poo. I wasn't intending to call it an excuse, but as has been pointed out, many older performances were recorded/sold in a different licensing era... what I like to call pre-Napster. It isn't that those involved didn't do what they thought they were supposed to (or maybe they didn't and knew they'd get away with it, hellifiknow) but today, it's a different era. Post-Napster is a maze, and while you could make the case for more content being a great thing, they cleared everything with the Legacy set. I know it cost them some coin to do it, clear licensing, and then re-bake for sale. The other stuff exists, but putting it on FN would be prohibitive for the reasons summarized much better by others. It isn't even cost/ROI; sometimes it's whether it's even allowed at any cost. I know this has been discussed many times, I know the decision is where it is (top12), and unless posting more things would bring in enough money to pay for all the extra effort of licensing and editing, this isn't going to happen. It makes for a larger discussion, but the corps now are allowed to do works which can be prohibitive, and post-Napster is an expensive place. One might argue that it would make sense for all licensing to get worked out in advance of being able to put it on the field, but even then, artists can revoke (PR 2008). No easy answers, but in a way, this extended content isn't really about the Fan Network. DCI isn't selling those other performances on disc either, for the same reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 It's also the "excuse" (or reasoning, to be more apt) for corps' performances getting chopped up on media (Boston's Angelou poetry last year), cut (Scout's "Empire..." from a few years ago), or flat out excluded (BD last year on non-USA Blu-ray/DVDs). It's a MAJOR issue and expense in this industry: one that is often maybe not worth the time/effort/money in order to appease a minority of fan base. My word choice of "excuse", was deliberate. I'm saying that crying "copyright" is an excuse to get people off of their back. Whatever the true reasoning. There's no reason that non-finalist shows from the past, who have music that is obviously in the public domain, can not be included online, or that early season shows from finalists that are slightly different than the finals version can not be included on FN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 My word choice of "excuse", was deliberate. I'm saying that crying "copyright" is an excuse to get people off of their back. Whatever the true reasoning. There's no reason that non-finalist shows from the past, who have music that is obviously in the public domain, can not be included online, or that early season shows from finalists that are slightly different than the finals version can not be included on FN. Sure there is. Let's say a show from 1985 in a teen-place was all public domain. Now you're playing favorites (perceived) by which you didn't put up all the 1990s teen place shows. Or, let's say only 15 seconds of many shows were not pubdom. Is it fair to not post those because they don't have the resources to edit those? Is it worth the complaints of incomplete/edited shows? And what if you're incorrect that a show in fact wasn't pubdom? How many thousands of dollars will that cost to fix? Again, where there's a will, there's a way, but there are also reasons... like them or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 That does essentially remove his music from the activity nowadays. But it has little effect on recordings from back when corps were allowed to play his music. John Williams cannot go back in time and stop Madison and North Star from playing Star Wars in 1978. Once it is out there, the rights to obtain streaming and mechanical licenses are guaranteed by law. Synchronization licensing is different, but that only affects video hard copies/downloads. Is this 100% legally true? I can appropriate any video w/out securing necessary copyright permission, post it on a subscription website, charge people, and that's legal because the video was made decades ago? I'm not saying you're wrong, and I may be misstating things, but are you sure that "once it's out there, streaming & mechanical licenses are guaranteed by law? I mean, if I put STAR WARS on YouTube, it would get taken down due to copyright violations, even though that film was made before the internet. Copyright laws aren't automatically transferable from medium to medium, at least as far as I know (and as far as I've talked to copyright lawyers). Again, I honestly don't know if this is true or not, so please enlighten me with specifics if you believe that DCI can post shows on FN/the internet regardless of copyright laws 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Is this 100% legally true? I can appropriate any video w/out securing necessary copyright permission, post it on a subscription website, charge people, and that's legal because the video was made decades ago? I'm not saying you're wrong, and I may be misstating things, but are you sure that "once it's out there, streaming & mechanical licenses are guaranteed by law? I mean, if I put STAR WARS on YouTube, it would get taken down due to copyright violations, even though that film was made before the internet. Copyright laws aren't automatically transferable from medium to medium, at least as far as I know (and as far as I've talked to copyright lawyers). Again, I honestly don't know if this is true or not, so please enlighten me with specifics if you believe that DCI can post shows on FN/the internet regardless of copyright laws I was thinking along similar lines but was waiting to see if anyone else knew more. My thought is what rights (if any) were obtained when the 70s show was done? Slipped thru the cracks then but what stink might be raised if those older shows were put out there today. Like I said before I was told 70s/80s unreleased corps vids/audio exist "out there" but the hold up is getting the rights. Edited June 10, 2014 by JimF-LowBari 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 One other thing that makes licensing tricky is a "most favored nation" clause. Many licenses, as I understand it, follow a common method and cost. However, most have MFN in them, so if one is expensive, they all get that highest rate. Sorry; just popped in my head. 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.