Fan Network - Why have you forsaken me?

[GUARDLING]

edit

Edited May 20, 2015 by GUARDLING

[HornTeacher]

oops..lol..I meant to type 30 grand. I actually received a letter stating this.( this was several years ago. None the less a boat load of money. You're right the artist probably would not have received much if anything. In this case nothing of course happened because it ( like many others that year ) went to silence for a brief time on the wgI DVDs. We learned a little since then I suppose.

I get it how an artist does deserve what they have worked so hard for and many do not like the hacking up of their works. the teacher side of me wants what i want also. Can't have it all. Companies I guess it's also what they put into it and want you to pay for what belongs in essence to them.

I guess this may be a little different given in the winter arena you are actually using someones recorded music not a re written version. complicated for sure.

"Ah owe mah soul to th' company store...."

[N.E. Brigand]

I understand the need for composers and musicians to protect their works, and also their inherent right to charge what they want for their creative work, and to deny others to use their work if they want. It is afterall, THEIR work.

But I really think some of these people that disallow Marching Bands, Drum Corps to utilize their works are being a little bit ridiculous. They should consider it an honor for any youth music ensemble to want to pay homage to them by playing one of their works. Some Composers, Musicians have in fact appreciated Corps deciding they'd like to utilize their work in show performance... but way too many of them, most of them millionaires through the sales and performances of their works, have lost their sense of perspective of what's really important in life, if not their very souls, in the process.

Ok, glad I could get that off my chest.

I largely agree with your post as a whole, but I think it may be worth giving a little further consideration to the passage I've bolded.

As discussed in the fine article to which Kamarag linked in the other thread, the idea that creators of artistic or scientific works have such "inherent rights" is a modern one that would have been treated with some skepticism by the founding generation of the United States. The Constitution gives Congress the power to "promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

Notice that the Constitutional authors felt that it was necessary to explain why they wanted to grant this right to artists and inventors: in order to give people additional incentive to create and discover things. It was not taken for granted that simply because you created something, you owned it.

There is also the fact that "limited times" then meant at most 28 years--an initial 14 years with one option to renew. Now it can be 95 years from publication to public domain. No one should try justifying the change by reference to greater life expectancy between 1787 and 1998 (when U.S. copyright law was most recently updated) . We're not living 67 years longer now than we were then; increases in life expectancy are largely due to decreases in infant mortality. The Founders all could reasonably hope to achieve their allotted three-score-and-ten years. After all, the most famous inventor living when the Constitution was drafted was then 81 and would live three more years.

(As I am not a strict constructionalist when it comes to the Constitution, I don't feel we must inevitably defer to the Founders' wishes--I just want us to recognize our own historical biases.)

Edited May 20, 2015 by N.E. Brigand

[Kamarag]

Maybe DCI Corps should pool their resources, and hire a consultant, whose sole job, would be to take all the off season anticipated works that DCI World Class, Open Class want to use, and have them provide that to the consultant to use with their publishing industry clout and inside knowledge of " the biz " to get more approvals, instead of more rejections.

When a DCI Corps Director contacts a publishing house, agent, composer, etc oftentimes these people don't know that DCI Corps Director from a hole in the wall. But if they are approached by a recognizable name on behalf of DCI, that might just be the thing to turn the " no's " into " yes's ". Isn't this how the system works in Wash. D.C. ? Its called hiring a lobbyist. Most of us don't like lobbyists, but these people are the best at getting " yes"s " for their constituency groups. This is because they are known, and they know how to get things done on behalf of those who have collectively pooled their resources and paid these people to act on their behalf. Its just one of my off the cuff, think outside the box, ideas anyway to see how DCI could better leverage themselves to get more " yes"s " than " no's " on their requests to get approvals to use the compositions of others.

That's already done, sort of. Most corps, bands, and indoor groups use CopyCat Licensing, a company that specializes in obtaining rights of all kinds (arranging and performance for the unit, synch and streaming for DCI/BOA). Sometimes corps do secure their own rights, but not usually (I've worked for corps that do it both ways). I believe DCI uses CopyCat as well (or at least used to). The company is an absolute joy to work with, and has taken the headache out of dealing with this stuff for hundreds (if not thousands) of groups across the country.

[Jeff Ream]

I understand the need for composers and musicians to protect their works, and also their inherent right to charge what they want for their creative work, and to deny others to use their work if they want. It is afterall, THEIR work.

But I really think some of these people that disallow Marching Bands, Drum Corps to utilize their works are being a little bit ridiculous. They should consider it an honor for any youth music ensemble to want to pay homage to them by playing one of their works. Some Composers, Musicians have in fact appreciated Corps deciding they'd like to utilize their work in show performance... but way too many of them, most of them millionaires thru the sales and performances of their works, have lost their sense of perspective of whats really important in life, if not their very souls, in the process.

Ok, glad I could get that off my chest.

the problem is it's rarely the musicians or composers denying the rights...it's the corporate attorneys that deny permission

[Jeff Ream]

Maybe DCI Corps should pool their resources, and hire a consultant, whose sole job, would be to take all the off season anticipated works that DCI World Class, Open Class want to use, and have them provide that to the consultant to use with their publishing industry clout and inside knowledge of " the biz " to get more approvals, instead of more rejections.

When a DCI Corps Director contacts a publishing house, agent, composer, etc oftentimes these people don't know that DCI Corps Director from a hole in the wall. But if they are approached by a recognizable name on behalf of DCI, that might just be the thing to turn the " no's " into " yes's ". Isn't this how the system works in Wash. D.C. ? Its called hiring a lobbyist. Most of us don't like lobbyists, but these people are the best at getting " yes"s " for their constituency groups. This is because they are known, and they know how to get things done on behalf of those who have collectively pooled their resources and paid these people to act on their behalf. Its just one of my off the cuff, think outside the box, ideas anyway to see how DCI could better leverage themselves to get more " yes"s " than " no's " on their requests to get approvals to use the compositions of others.

going forward, and for the most part going back to 2000 or so, DCI has done a great job, albeit with a few hiccups here and there. Take Phantom 08...after the first batch of dvd's went out, the composer of one part of their show changed his mind!

The real issues is what DCI did...well ok...didn't do with older material. That's 95% of the fight

[skevinp]

the problem is it's rarely the musicians or composers denying the rights...it's the corporate attorneys that deny permission

They wouldn't be able to do that unless the composers chose to sell the rights initially, though, would they?

[Jeff Ream]

They wouldn't be able to do that unless the composers chose to sell the rights initially, though, would they?

yes....but then the onus is on them to chase everything down that didn't get permission and go after the legal avenues.

what composer/musician is crazy enough to do that?

[skevinp]

yes....but then the onus is on them to chase everything down that didn't get permission and go after the legal avenues.

what composer/musician is crazy enough to do that?

So those companies make it possible for composers and musicians to be compensated for their work by taking on a task too difficult or undesirable to do themselves, yet they are "the problem"?

I'm sure it's me, but I'm confused.

[Jeff Ream]

So those companies make it possible for composers and musicians to be compensated for their work by taking on a task too difficult or undesirable to do themselves, yet they are "the problem"?

I'm sure it's me, but I'm confused.

composers wont look for abuses unless it's huge. the companies will look for every abuse no matter how small or large