Fan Network - Why have you forsaken me?

[MikeN]

I didn't read the fine print, no. Fine print is for scoundrels to weasel out of deals that they are happy for you to NOT take the time to read the fine print about.

I suspect your issues with this are something that cannot be resolved on a message board then.

Mike

[seen-it-all]

I suspect your issues with this are something that cannot be resolved on a message board then.

Mike

Agreed! Like the old saying goes, "Education is reading the fine print. Experience is what you get when you don't."

[MikeN]

Or..... DCI decided to keep ALL the archives show content back to '74, but instead, cancelled all the live shows ( pointing to the " fine print " in the contract as within their rights ), And you get no refund, no explanation. The way you find out is to turn on your computer when you think you get the live stream , but you get a blank screen.

Raise your hand here if you think the dissatisfied, angry, frustrated, mystified, etc FN Subscribers in THIS scenario would be higher than the " 1%- 3 % " as alleged by the DCI PR machine ?

Well, they're the only ones that have any data like that, so either you believe them or not. There's no third option. I believe them. You don't. Doesn't leave you with many options, though.

Mike

[MikeN]

So, I'm curious about the feelings of the remaining brain trust:

The FN is $70 as I understand it. And now there is the reality that it's primary purpose is to provide streaming shows. Any older shows still available are on time-delay and, likely, will diminish in number over time.

So, taking into account the regional and finals shows you're able to attend, is $70 worth seeing 6 or 7 shows live each year? Yes, $10 or $12 per showing, no matter how many friends are viewing on the 60" Visio.

Is it still worth it?

The last couple of years I bought the San Antonio show only, instead of the full year. Honestly, I don't watch the old stuff (I have most of it already), and I'm too busy to be watching Tuesday night live shows anyways.

Mike

[MikeN]

Frankly, DCI isn't selling the product that I want in a nice package.

I want the top 12 in Bluray, then the rest of the top 25 on DVD. I want the historical shows too.

I've been able to do this with the FN + Bluray, but now that I can't count on the videos being available on FN, I want the DVDs.

DCI needs to add this option ( Bluray + DVD + FN).

I'd much rather have the ability to buy a top 12 video download set at a realistic cost. (I know, I might have mentioned this before) Right now the Legacy DVD is $39 while the video file downloads cost $60. Clearly FN understands the "bundle" concept - they do it for almost every year in audio already.

Mike

[MikeN]

My point, instead of the publishing companies constantly charging more and more for video sync rights, online rights, etc., they should realize that wow, these corps performances are actually getting the composers of some of this music some exposure, which in turn puts some money in their pockets when band directors buy music, fans buy original recordings, etc.

I know this is a pie in the sky outlook about it, but I really think they could look at it another way sometimes.

I get your point, but I don't think they care one whit about exposure from DCI, which frankly is such small potatoes to Universal/BMG, Hal Leonard/Sony, etc that it's practically a mom-and-pop. Like Madison's Empire State of Mind, one thirty second commercial on TV reached more people than have ever viewed that Madison show live, video or on Youtube since 2010 combined. It's not even worth comparing, from their view. Here, all they see is a revenue stream that had historically not been monetized, and they're correcting it.

Mike

[skevinp]

the big key here is lawyers.

big name publishers have no problem dragging something through the courts for YEARS, racking up zillions in legal fees. DCi doesn't have that kind of cash. So a publisher will gladly string things out because they know if the cash dries up, the other side gives up and they win

How do they win, though, if they don't make any money from said other side?

[garfield]

As HockeyDad said a while back, is the irony here is that DCI joined the streaming revolution to get noticed, and got itself noticed?

Be careful what you wish for as you might just get it, I suppose.

Sure seemed like a good idea at the time, though, I also suppose.

[N.E. Brigand]

Wow, it took a long time for this joke to appear. Usually within the first three pages of any discussion that touches on copyright issues, we see eye-rolling (do I recall correctly that it's usually whitedawn who grumbles?) at the audacity of the legally unwashed daring to comment on the matter.

[N.E. Brigand]

c. If a publisher is making a new demand, it should apply to their music wherever/whenever it is used. Why would it not apply to any shows after 1999?

Perhaps DCI made sure starting in 2000 that the mechanical and synchronization licenses they acquired specifically included internet usage? That would have been at the height of Napster's popularity, I think, so the subject likely came to their attention around that time.