Digital Video Rights Issues Continue - Music For All Joins The List

[N.E. Brigand]

Violating a law simply because one disagrees with it is ethically untenable.

In this case, I agree, but you put that a bit too broadly (unless you truly oppose all forms of civil disobedience).

To expect to generate some income for your work is not greed, it is simply the way our economic system operates.

Again, while I agree that creators are right to seek compensation for their work, those two concepts are not necessarily exclusive of each other: a given system could certainly work hand in hand with greed. However, in this case, the Constitution allows the government to grant copyright to creators for the explicit purpose of encouraging further creativity. Although by the terms Congress initially enacted, a good deal of the music that Tresona owns would long since have fallen into the public domain--and the difference has far outstripped the relatively small increase in adult life expectancy since that time.

[N.E. Brigand]

I can tell you that we spent $600 to license 2 tunes for our show this year (a TV show's theme and a Beatles number). Our ballad, however, was a pop song from the last 6 years or so and was going to cost us $1,100 just for that number. Needless to say, we got a new ballad.

And last year, if memory serves, your repertoire included "Shenandoah" and the New World Symphony, both in the public domain.

[PREMiERdrum]

And last year, if memory serves, your repertoire included "Shenandoah" and the New World Symphony, both in the public domain.

Precisely! Plenty of public domain stuff in this year's show, too. We have the next 2 shows generally shelled out as well, but they are a little more dependent on material that would need licensed. So we'll see how this all plays out.

And I have to ask... Where did you see our show last year? That one had great potential, but a 1-and-done director that the kids didn't respond to... it never got there.

Edited August 13, 2015 by PREMiERdrum

[N.E. Brigand]

And I have to ask... Where did you see our show last year?

OMEA state finals at Dayton.

[PREMiERdrum]

OMEA state finals at Dayton.

One of their better performances, at least. Hopefully you catch us this year. Much better concept, better writing, and if all goes as planned, better execution.

[FlamMan]

Its a darn shame that those who own the rights to the songs cant just allow a youth music activity to use their material. Musicians always preach about how important youth music is, yet they may have a negative affect on these groups & they may ultimately cease to exist due to their legal actions. Its just sad.

Waaaay too many Lawyers in the world looking for new business!

Edited August 14, 2015 by FlamMan

[ironlips]

In this case, I agree, but you put that a bit too broadly (unless you truly oppose all forms of civil disobedience).

Again, while I agree that creators are right to seek compensation for their work, those two concepts are not necessarily exclusive of each other: a given system could certainly work hand in hand with greed. However, in this case, the Constitution allows the government to grant copyright to creators for the explicit purpose of encouraging further creativity. Although by the terms Congress initially enacted, a good deal of the music that Tresona owns would long since have fallen into the public domain--and the difference has far outstripped the relatively small increase in adult life expectancy since that time.

To your points:

Civil disobedience is always justified when the law in question is contrary to ethical standards. I made no claim to exclude that. You read me "too broadly".

Perhaps, in turn, I mis-read you as well. Your statement seems to me to suggest that there ought to be a shorter term limit on the right to hold certain property, i.e., a copyright. These limits are not arbitrary, but set in place deliberately to protect the rights of the owner's "heirs and assigns", to use the legal jargon.

The current law, for instance, does so by extending copyright for works created after 1978 to 70 years beyond the death of the author in most cases. Think of it as the equivalent of leaving the house to your kids.

There are other terms for works created earlier, works whose copyright currently subsists...etc., but the concept remains essentially the same.

Thanks for helping me to clarify this, though it's virtually impossible to reduce this complex statute to just a few paragraphs. Required disclaimer: I am not an attorney and offer no legal advice. When necessary I consult experts for guidance in this particular field, and they are compensated well, I assure you.

Edited August 13, 2015 by ironlips

[N.E. Brigand]

Perhaps, in turn, I mis-read you as well. Your statement seems to me to suggest that there ought to be a shorter term limit on the right to hold certain property, i.e., a copyright. These limits are not arbitrary, but set in place deliberately to protect the rights of the owner's "heirs and assigns", to use the legal jargon.

The current law, for instance, does so by extending copyright for works created after 1978 to 70 years beyond the death of the author in most cases. Think of it as the equivalent of leaving the house to your kids.

There are other terms for works created earlier, works whose copyright currently subsists...etc., but the concept remains essentially the same.

Thanks for helping me to clarify this, though it's virtually impossible to reduce this complex statute to just a few paragraphs. Required disclaimer: I am not an attorney and offer no legal advice. When necessary I consult experts for guidance in this particular field, and they are compensated well, I assure you.

Per Wikipedia: "Copyright protection generally lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a "work for hire", then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter. For works created before 1978, the copyright duration rules are complicated. However, works created before 1923 have generally made their way into the public domain."

I think that's ridiculous. So no, you don't misread me.

U.S. copyright term was originally 14 years from the date of publication with a possible extension of 14 more years. That's right: 28 years was the maximum. The founders didn't think that intellectual property was something you should leave to your kids. (And certainly not to your grandkids. Very few people even today will outlive their parents by 70 years.) While I'm by no means a "strict originalist" who deifies the nation's first leaders, I think copyright term should return to something like what they set up.

Add, say, 20 years to account for the increase in life expectancy for adults. (If you had reached the age of 20 in 1790--and most copyright work is created by adults, after all--your life expectancy was about 60. Nowadays it's about 80.) So 48 years maximum.

Remember, the U.S. Constitution identifies the purpose of copyright as "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."

The idea that the "Progress of Science and useful Arts" be impeded if inventors and artists didn't think it could guarantee their children a lifelong source of income is crazy.

[N.E. Brigand]

Dear Supporter and Valued Customer:

This communication is intended to update and provide you with the latest information concerning the provision and delivery of Bands of America commemorative videos. First, the latest change…

Music for All Video (On-line streaming video subscriptions)

• Effective August 11, 2015 the Music for All subscription online video program is discontinued. New subscriptions will not be offered or sold until further notice. We are working to determine appropriate actions/next steps concerning unexpired subscriptions. Next steps will depend, in part, on the results of ongoing discussions with copyright holders to resolve past and present licensing issues and the negotiated terms and conditions for providing future video commemoratives/services. Persons who have time remaining on existing annual subscriptions (as of August 11^th) will be contacted when MFA finalizes its plan and procedures.

Unshipped Fall 2014 DVD Products

• Music for All (through its licensee Mr. Video) has not shipped orders for videos of some events occurring on or after October 18, 2014. We have and continue to be in negotiations with certain music rights holders for licensing necessary to complete Fall 2014 videos. Keeping in mind that the majority of music is licensed, efforts to license remaining titles continue. We have not been able to obtain some agreements for licenses that are economically feasible, suitable or sustainable in our current DVD and streaming product models. Persons with existing pre-paid orders will have their DVDs shipped with all unlicensed music muted. Email communication will be sent when your DVD has been shipped. Mr. Video expects to start shipping by the end of August. If and when we complete negotiations with rights holders to license the remaining music, we will ship replacement DVDs with this music un-muted.

So Music for All essentially has told Tresona: OK, we're shutting down our online subscription services, which means you get nothing.

[ashevillemurphy]

So will "LIVE" performances of the various contests still be offered....