GUARDLING Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I've been a fan network subscriber most seasons since it got started, but it's incredibly difficult to justify the cost when I know for sure I'll miss most of these streams... It's really time for the corps to embrace what most of the entertainment/performing arts orgs are realizing - that to build audience loyalty you have to deliver content and lots of it, most of the time for free and in a spontaneous way... I hope to get my fill on YouTube and Periscope, but the corps need to be ok putting that content out there and stop trying to be "secret" or hide it from the public... That tactic doesn't work, and it has been proven over and over that the more content you put out, the more interest is drummed up and people will actually show up or at least consume the content online... There are definite ways to make money off of this. People will put things out when they decide its ready for viewing ( corps ) as far as the other or FN that has nothing to do with corps but does have to do with laws Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) So what would be the cost of trying to straighten this mess out..... would it worth DCIs while or even possible given DCIs less than deep pockets..... Doesn't matter if DCI is in the right 100% if it's too #### expensive you're SOL..... Or one ahole copyright holder trying to "send a message" (even if they are in the wrong) and pfffft kiss it goodbye due to costs to defend. Edited June 14, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasgre2000 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Jasgre I appreciate your legal knowledge but what ive heard here previously is there has been a major change in the way big rights holders are interpreting the laws. And while they may not be trying to play hard ball with DCI I suspect that while everyone is having to renegotiate things, they are going to give priority of attention to bigger players with more money at stake. I'm not sure whyere you heard that from. There hasn't been any significant changes in copyright law within the last few years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I'm not sure whyere you heard that from. There hasn't been any significant changes in copyright law within the last few years. As I said I heard it here, meaning DCP and yes, I know how ridiculous it would be to consider DCP a credible source. As DCP posters go though, I seem to remember they were not the type to say things irresponsibly. Though responsible people say incorrect things all the time where law is involved. And some things people were saying we're almost certainly incorrect. The discussion goes back months, starting when archived shows started disappearing from Fan Network without any explanation given. I remember people saying the rights holders had started to interpret the contracts differently. It is possible the issue there was not the same as here though. Perhaps someone who reported such will see this and can add explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I'm not sure whyere you heard that from. There hasn't been any significant changes in copyright law within the last few years. I think there's a difference between the law changing and some deep-pocketed company deciding that DCI's agreements to use their music don't actually allow DCI to offer non-live online video streaming. The latter seems to have happened, else DCI wouldn't be so rigid with the service offered this summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApathyJones Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I think there's a difference between the law changing and some deep-pocketed company deciding that DCI's agreements to use their music don't actually allow DCI to offer non-live online video streaming. The latter seems to have happened, else DCI wouldn't be so rigid with the service offered this summer. Wouldn't it be awesome if they just maybe, I don't know, told us why they made all the changes? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I think there's a difference between the law changing and some deep-pocketed company deciding that DCI's agreements to use their music don't actually allow DCI to offer non-live online video streaming. The latter seems to have happened, else DCI wouldn't be so rigid with the service offered this summer. That's what I was thinking, that it was something like that. Though probably not just DCI but also others whose contracts had similar language, including bigger players who will get higher priority in negotiation because more money is involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drangin Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Why didn't DCI keep Fan Network going as a separate subscription, since they are 1) going with a different format for live-streaming and 2) jacking up prices anyway? Were they told to cease and desist with the older files by June 12? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Why didn't DCI keep Fan Network going as a separate subscription, since they are 1) going with a different format for live-streaming and 2) jacking up prices anyway? Were they told to cease and desist with the older files by June 12? Only 3 people or so people inside the bowels of DCI HQ probably know, and they ain't tellin' nobody nuttin" ( haha!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superOOk Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) No, what is happening is an old business model (SME, BMG, etc...) is failing and they are turning to the courts to help them sustain their revenues. The fact that I pick up my trumpet, play a rendition of someone's song, charge people for the show, and get sued for it, NOT BY THE ARTIST, but by some industry conglomerate that "owns the artist", is on it's face ridiculous. The problem isn't that DCI would lose, the problem is that they would get sued. Getting sued is VERY COSTLY, whether you can win or not. Whoa. Look folks, it's as simple as this: The copyright holders, represented by their lawyers, have finally called foul on 40+ years of DCI's less-than-airtight adherence to copyright (and DCI is not alone in this; other arts organizations are similarly over a barrel after years of lax enforcement). The simple fact is, if the lawyers wanted to march into court tomorrow to demand payment, they would quickly and effectively shut down DCI for good. And don't think WGI is out of the woods, either -- there's nothing fundamentally different in WGI's track record regarding copyright. Has DCI's customer service during this time been less than brilliant? Yes. But that doesn't mean the legal matters are not real. They are very real. Will they get sorted out? Probably, yes, for a price -- a price you and I will pay when all the negotiations have been concluded and DCI resumes offering replay and archives. No one's being a sycophant around here. Only realistic. Edited June 15, 2015 by superOOk 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.