Fan Network - Why have you forsaken me?

[Jeff Ream]

So, oh Copyright-Swammi, that last makes me think that this could be vagary in, maybe, both directions. Are these new hurdles permanent? Is it possible that DCI might win a future round of negotiation and re-allow these performances?

I know nothing, but it seems that, for all but the most-wealthy of composers, these negotiations always settle on money, right?

But at what cost? Publishers are now demanding annual renewals. So this could be an issue every year. Can dci support $50k a year per publisher? $100k?

No, dci cannot. That's part of the issue. The laws are so new, and the publishers want any cash they can get. So they're testing the interpretations of the laws. Even the legal fees to fight it hurt DCI's bottom line.

DCIs research has shown over 90% of fan network subscribers are buying for live feeds, not archives. At what point does the cost outweigh the passionate and vocal archive lovers who make up less than 10% of the paying customers?

[tesmusic]

So, oh Copyright-Swammi, that last makes me think that this could be vagary in, maybe, both directions. Are these new hurdles permanent? Is it possible that DCI might win a future round of negotiation and re-allow these performances?

I know nothing, but it seems that, for all but the most-wealthy of composers, these negotiations always settle on money, right?

That's the thing about copyright, it could work out in the future for the corps, and it could get worse.

Here's another example. Before the movie version of Sweeney Todd came out there were countless arrangements from various publishers. After the movie came out, Hal Leonard Corporation took control and now charges $250 per song used in arranging permissions alone, which means if you do 4 songs it's $1,000 just to arrange. You then have to contact Sondheims people and hope you can record it, and now that there is so much streaming, that's another contact.

It's also different in steaming a live performance, and streaming content that was recorded 30 years ago.

We also need to remember that streaming is a relatively new concept, and on that wasn't thought about when many of these shows were written and performed.

Which is why much of the post 2000 shows are not taken down, but the pre 2000 shows are. Boston 2012-Respighi contract for rights would look nothing like 1991 Star, even though many of the same givers of permission may be the same. That's the whole no grandfathering in concept.

[garfield]

But at what cost? Publishers are now demanding annual renewals. So this could be an issue every year. Can dci support $50k a year per publisher? $100k?

No, dci cannot. That's part of the issue. The laws are so new, and the publishers want any cash they can get. So they're testing the interpretations of the laws. Even the legal fees to fight it hurt DCI's bottom line.

DCIs research has shown over 90% of fan network subscribers are buying for live feeds, not archives. At what point does the cost outweigh the passionate and vocal archive lovers who make up less than 10% of the paying customers?

Yes, I've heard this rationale many times, and the math makes sense as you present it of course.

So, this Fan Network thing, which began as a storehouse to replace the cost of hard media has now morphed into a live-feed medium, with only a short-term library of variable length to see the most recently recorded shows, or those for which publishers have not yet figured out how to press their contracts. We know, of course, that eventually they will.

Because the average tenure of today's drum corps fan is only 3 1/2 years, it dovetails the argument that, essentially, very few of today's fans want to watch legacy shows beyond their participation in the activity. And, for those that do, DCI offers hard media for purchase.

OK, got it. TFN for live streaming, and DCI.org for watching legacy shows.

[garfield]

The biggest problem is technology changes faster than the law, and because the laws are so new, people want to test interpretation.

Sources say this came out of left field, and the publishers interpretation of the law would be far more than dci could handle. Like hundreds of thousands. Annually.

It kicks wgi and DCA in the balls too. BDs media box and other possibly too.

Luckily people weren't too busy with Midwest to answer their phones. I'd rather wait for DCIs attorney for licensing dive in and analyze before dci makes a statement that could burn them later.

I wouldn't rule out a make good from dci either. But believe it or not, over 90% of FN subscribers get it for live events, not the archives.

Licensing issues will only get worse before they getter.

Just spoutin' off here, but how long has streaming live events been around in DCI? Is that amount of data really sufficient to make a business decision?

But you can just ignore that question because it's totally irrelevant in light of your later observation that technology changes faster than the law. Taken to its extreme, TFN is a TV station. If you want to re-watch something you're gonna need to buy hard media.

It's an unnatural and inefficient imbalance that the law is behind technology that, based on all other technology advances, will be rectified with time.

Taken to an extreme one could see that, due to publishing costs, DCI is reduced to a live-performance only activity.

Of course, it will instead spawn some other solution we cannot yet see. Like drum-corps specific composers, maybe.

[BRASSO]

A full and complete FN refund should be due those subscribers that elect one now, imo.

For example : assume 2 sets of cash buyers of a 1 mlliion dollar home. Two scenarios, in other words.

The first buyers scenario buy the home principally ( for them ) because it has an attractive , uniquely designed indoor pool, that they loved about the house.

The second set of buyers scenario buy the home , DESPITE the fact it has an indoor pool, an indoor pool that they do not want to clean, maintain, and besides, they arn't swimmers.

Before the buyers move in, the owner- seller decides to close the indoor pool, and pave the ground over. The owner then decides to deduct $100,000 off the 1 million dollar sale price, and hold the buyers to the contract for the purchase of the home.

While the 2nd case scenario buyers, who don't use, nor particularly want the indoor pool, might be ok with the return of the $100,000, the 1st set of scenario case buyers, might be justifiably upset that the owner thinks that house is worth $900,000 to them still. It might be, but thats really up to the buyers of the now diminished in value home that no longer has the desired pool they wanted... The first set of buyers thus,, who wanted a house with an indoor pool, are entitled to a complete and full refund for the entire 1 million dollars paid if they want the full refund. The owner- seller never even asked the purchaser if it'd be ok with them to alter the product sold to them, by paving over the indoor pool after the agreement was made to purchase the house, and taking their money. Furthermore,, if its found that the owner-seller never had a proper permit to build an indoor pool, and the town made them close the indoor pool as a result of this and after the owner-seller took the 1 million dollars, thats exclusively the owner-seller's problem, and does not alter the fact in the least that the purchaser is entitled now to a full and complete refund of their monies paid if they so choose.. Thats how I see it anyway.

Edited December 20, 2014 by BRASSO

[HornTeacher]

That was then. This is now.

The ultimate contract provision.

Not always true, either. Simply think "Anti-Gun Lobbyists vs. 2nd Amendment." No, the Constitution isn't a "contract" -- but I submit that the argument is in much the same vein.

Edited December 20, 2014 by HornTeacher

[Cappybara]

Honestly all I use FN for is to listen to DCI shows as study music over the semester. Almost exclusively. I'll watch a live show or two over the summer but I'm usually too busy to catch any of them. Seeing this happen is really disappointing since I use FN pretty much everyday during the semester.

[Lincoln]

A full and complete FN refund should be due those subscribers that elect one now, imo.

I used the Fan Network mostly for the live streaming of shows. I guess I'm also one of the 10% who used it to access older shows. Even though I have them on DVD, the fact that the shows were just a couple of clicks away made it very convenient - particularly when I wanted to see a show that someone on DCP was referring to.

IMO this rights thing is so out of control that it will take years to sort out if by chance someone has the time and money to do so.

This has already affected shows posted on WGI and someone above referred to it affecting DCA. I see it affecting so many other things that it's almost as if any single possible recording of a live musical event will be affected all the way down to parents recording their child's first concert and posting it on YouTube only to have it yanked down because the music used has the publishers watching for violations.

Music is supposed to be fun but everyone wants to be, and thinks their going to be as rich as Madonna.

[tesmusic]

A full and complete FN refund should be due those subscribers that elect one now, imo.

For example : assume 2 sets of cash buyers of a 1 mlliion dollar home. Two scenarios, in other words.

The first buyers scenario buy the home principally ( for them ) because it has an attractive , uniquely designed indoor pool, that they loved about the house.

The second set of buyers scenario buy the home , DESPITE the fact it has an indoor pool, an indoor pool that they do not want to clean, maintain, and besides, they arn't swimmers.

Before the buyers move in, the owner- seller decides to close the indoor pool, and pave the ground over. The owner then decides to deduct $100,000 off the 1 million dollar sale price, and hold the buyers to the contract for the purchase of the home.

While the 2nd case scenario buyers, who don't use, nor particularly want the indoor pool, might be ok with the return of the $100,000, the 1st set of scenario case buyers, might be justifiably upset that the owner thinks that house is worth $900,000 to them still. It might be, but thats really up to the buyers of the now diminished in value home that no longer has the desired pool they wanted... The first set of buyers thus,, who wanted a house with an indoor pool, are entitled to a complete and full refund for the entire 1 million dollars paid if they want the full refund. The owner- seller never even asked the purchaser if it'd be ok with them to alter the product sold to them, by paving over the indoor pool after the agreement was made to purchase the house, and taking their money. Furthermore,, if its found that the owner-seller never had a proper permit to build an indoor pool, and the town made them close the indoor pool as a result of this and after the owner-seller took the 1 million dollars, thats exclusively the owner-seller's problem, and does not alter the fact in the least that the purchaser is entitled now to a full and complete refund of their monies paid if they so choose.. Thats how I see it anyway.

The issue is not as simple as a home comparison.

The fact also remains that in the small print it states that content can be changed, so the argument about full content is not even a possibility.

We can't as fans expect them to break the law, we also didn't know 20 years ago that streaming would happen, and besides those laws weren't even written, which is why DCI, along with other organizations that stream live video content, have had to make changes.

The TV show The Wonder Years had a petition for years to have it released on DVD, and finally was in recent years. The reason, there was so much music on that show and the producers had the rights to use it in the original airing from 1988-1993, however worked for almost 2 decades to secure rights just to have it on DVD, and still had to take songs out and swap new ones in, why? New copyright laws.

Read the small print ladies and gentlemen. DCI could have contacted people, which would be a nice gesture, but they don't have to, and violated nothing, because it is written in the terms of the subscription.

As for a refund-on what grounds? Not going to happen. Look at the wording. There is nothing that says every single show. It implies that content back to 1975, but nowhere does it definitively say ALL shows. Unfortunately for those that spent the money and want a refund, it won't happen. Even a lawsuit against DCI wouldn't be taken on by a court.

The solution for those that are upset is simply don't sign up for it again.

Edited December 20, 2014 by tesmusic

[BRASSO]

I do have sympathies for DCI in this. Its something they may not desire to do, but are legally required to do. I do get that. But my biggest sympathies still lie with the FN subscribers. I too utilize the streaming of the older shows a lot, and feel the product is severely diminished now as a result of this action taken. The good news here I suppose is that these are not long lasting purchases. They are annual subscriptions. Sort of like magazine subscriptions. If we choose to let the subsciption run out at the end of the current term, thats an elective option too, I suppose. For my part, as a long time loyal FN subscriber since day one of its launch, I'll see what DCI does with this, before making my decision moving forward.

Edited December 20, 2014 by BRASSO