Jeff Ream Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Well, at least the DCIFN is still up. The WGIFN has been pulled off the air period...WGI Fan Network subscriberWe are writing to all past subscribers to inform you of the status of the WGI Fan Network service for the 2015 season. As valued customers, we feel it important to share with you a progress report on the challenges WGI is facing in the ever-changing world of “new media”. Due to copyright considerations that we are diligently attempting to find affordable solutions for, the WGI Fan Network was suspended onDecember 1. Unfortunately, it now appears that we will be unable to provide online streaming performances on the Fan Network until further notice. We are investigating the possibility of a limited webcast from the WGI World Championships in April. Please know that we are committing considerable resources towards investigating the copyright challenges everyone is facing in this evolving world. Our suspension of the Fan Network is proactive one on the part of WGI. We remain committed to providing our customers as many online performances as possible while adhering to all copyright requirements as prescribed by law. Thank you again for your continued support of the WGI Fan Network. The WGI Fan Network Team right. They suspended service on 12/1, and just NOW they are announcing something. why? lawyers. I've been told that DCI has been itching to announce something, anything since before Christmas, but...gasp...the lawyers said no. And I've been told that by more than 3 people who would know. But why believe me, I haven't been wrong yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 It isn't really lawyers but rather the set of circumstances, system of laws, and opportunity of rights holders to rely on such laws earnestly and/or frivolously in a way that impacts what DCI may or may not be able to do without the risk of litigation or potential harm to outcomes thereof, that causes their lawyers to advise them on what they believe, based on their experience and expertise, is the wisest course of action in matters that are seldom so conveniently clear cut as to provide simple answers without erring well on the side of caution. ok, so in reading your post, really it all comes down to lawyers. a fool who acts as his own counsel is a fool dommed to lose. so, DCI has chosen to listen to counsel as opposed to doing what they'd like to do and would appease everyone here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 A law team is telling DCI "don't send one word of communication about the fact that roughly 10% of FN videos is now offline. Nothing: not 'sorry for the inconvenience' or 'we're working on.' Nothing." As someone who has in fact dealt with lawyers quite a bit in the last few years as a labor relations representative, I call BS on that. Communication is not an awful, deal-breaking thing EVER: poor communication is, misinformation is, etc. A lawyer can easily write a letter for DCI FN to send or post to its customers. I don't think I personally know a lawyer who would say the best choice of customer service action would be to do absolutely nothing, and communicate zero to customers. That's bad business, and lack of communication = poor form. Again, I get the problem (at least I think I do: that whole 'lack of any communication' thing doesn't help ease my mind as a consumer), and I would understand if DCI had to be broad, cryptic, or vanilla with a response or announcement. But I will not buy "lawyers" as a reason for zero communication to paying customers about terms of service radically (ish) change for a subscription service. In fact, I would think it would be lawyers that would advocate saying SOMETHING to customers to placate them during funky times. see my previous post. since before Christmas DCI has been waiting for lawyers to ok an announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 It may be a known business principle as you suggest, that business must sometimes withdraw significant portions of their offerings without even informing the customer for fear that even vaguely acknowledging the removal "until further notice" would affect the legal outcome. But I've never heard of it. None of the articles posted on here mention any such factor. I'm not a lawyer, but neither are you. If you think that ever happens, back it up. In general, lawyers are consultants covering their own posteriors. Every business manager knows this. Lawyers cannot be accused of malpractice if they advise wildly exaggerated caution, so that's what they may do. If DCI's attorney's advised not even acknowledging this, as you suggest, and DCI went along with that, then that suggests that DCI's value of FN as a business and it's customers is less than it's desire to cover it's own posterior. But consider this: if there were multiple DCIs, and the fans were free to choose which one they wanted to support, I think you'd see the fan's interests entering more into that equation. I'd like to see DCI act a little bit like they had some competition. Just a little. DCI cannot outslug major publishers in court. Those guys like to and get off on suing people out of business Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I get that, but if the lawyer had said, "Withdraw a significant percent of your product line, and don't even acknowledge you did it for at least several weeks," I think you'd be looking for a new lawyer. well WGI suspended their entire fan network on 12/1....and nothing until today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Thanks Skajerk, I see three implications of this: - WGI pulling FN was indeed due to copyright, as was generally suspected - WGI is acknowledging the issue, and acknowledged it publicly from the start (if not the exact reason) - Unfortunately, the costs of meeting the new copyright requirements are prohibitive, which sucks. Hopefully the streaming sync rights are more affordable for DCI than the master rights were for WGI. But we'll see. actually the initial email gave little reason as to why it was suspended. http://www.wgi.org/news/12012014-The-2015-WGI-Fan-Network.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 WGI suspending the Fan Network doesn't surprise me at all. The sheer number of groups that perform at WGI regionals and championships must make securing streaming rights absurdly expensive. DCI and DCA are dealing with far fewer groups, so they may indeed survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 ok, so in reading your post, really it all comes down to lawyers. a fool who acts as his own counsel is a fool dommed to lose. so, DCI has chosen to listen to counsel as opposed to doing what they'd like to do and would appease everyone here. My point is there are reasons for what lawyers advise, and by your statement above you would appear to agree with me. When you say it all comes down to lawyers some people will hear, especially with all the irrational prejudices that abound, that lawyers are the root cause of the problem and that everything would just be fine otherwise. That's like saying that doctors are the reason a woman shouldn't drink when she is pregnant just because they are the ones who advise her not to. No, the dangers are the reasons and they already exist. Doctors are just the ones who understand them and advise accordingly. The reason for the verbosity of my post was to illustrate that the reality of the situation cannot be oversimplified, especially since such oversimplifications open the door to all sorts of irrational conclusions and accusations. Not that that sort of thing ever happens in DCP of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 right. They suspended service on 12/1, and just NOW they are announcing something. why? lawyers. I've been told that DCI has been itching to announce something, anything since before Christmas, but...gasp...the lawyers said no. And I've been told that by more than 3 people who would know. But why believe me, I haven't been wrong yet If your premise is that lawyers are advising these groups against making announcements, then why did WGI make an announcement while DCI remains silent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 WGI suspending the Fan Network doesn't surprise me at all. The sheer number of groups that perform at WGI regionals and championships must make securing streaming rights absurdly expensive. DCI and DCA are dealing with far fewer groups, so they may indeed survive. Not following you. Maybe if you could explain what part of the licensing process is priced on number of performing groups involved? Of course, if that really is a problem, WGI could limit their broadcast to an affordable number of groups. 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.