Copyrights And Common Sense

[over60]

I used the term "common sense" in the title of this post for a reason. I know what I was proposing is not legal based on the current copyright laws. I want the law to be changed based upon common sense usage of the material by educational and non-profit groups. As was stated, passing laws has nothing to do with common sense, but with how much money is behind the people wanting the law passed, in other words, politics. Most politicians will compromise common sense, morality, safety and many other virtues as long as they get hefty contributions from sponsors of legislation.

I still contend that when high school bands and drum corps perform copyrighted music, especially the material that's not commercially successful, the copyright holders will receive compensation derived from these performances when fans are exposed to this material for the first time and consequently purchase commercially available CDs, DVDs and tickets to public performances. The big name, financially well off copyright holders need to re-evaluate their thinking about not allowing educational organizations to perform their material without compensation. I don't know how many DVDs DCI sells but I can't imagine it amounts to a hill of beans to the big name copyright holders when compared to their gross receipts from commercial DVD and CD sales, movie, TV and other performance fees, some of which have been bringing in large fees for decades.

Edited August 13, 2015 by over60

[JoeDz]

I'm not a lawyer but here are my thoughts on the ongoing DCI copyright problem. Any legal clarification would be appreciated, but do we really need any? I think an adjustment to the copyright laws, or rather, an exemption, is indicated. Are the DCI corps causing meaningful net financial harm to copyright owners? I don't think so, and I contend it could be just the opposite.

Copyrights protect people who create original content, whether it's music, art, literature, newspapers, movies, etc. I understand that these people want, and deserve, financial compensation if other people are attempting to profit financially relating to the performance of or other use of their protected material. But this is not the case with any of the DCI corps.

All the corps are non-profit groups and DCI is a non-profit corporation. Therefore, it's my contention that they should not have to pay when they perform copyrighted material since they have no intention of, nor do they, profit financially. Think of all the high school and college bands, orchestras and dramatic groups. Do they have to request permission from multiple copyright owners every time they perform copyrighted material just because they may charge admission? I doubt it. I hope not. It certainly can be argued that DCI and and its member corps are also educational organizations and therefore are in the same category as schools, or should be.

Here is a copy of DCI's copyright and trademark policy from their website:

"Copyright and Trademark Policy

All content included on this site is the property of Drum Corps International, Inc., and is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. All rights are reserved. Materials copyrighted or trademarked by Drum Corps International, including, but not limited to, audio recordings, video recordings, logos, graphics, photographic images, print materials; event results, score reports, and recaps; trademarks, and service marks (whether or not the material is included on this site) may not be used without express written permission from Drum Corps International. This includes audio and video recordings of performances at Drum Corps International events.

Drum Corps International may grant permission to use the foregoing on a case-by-case basis. Requests for permission must be made in writing. Requests for use of copyrighted music or other images owned by composers or others require you to secure copyright permission from the owner prior to your request to Drum Corps International. This release must be included with your written request. Should permission be granted, the release is on a one-time basis. Further use or reuse without permission is prohibited. All materials must be given appropriate credit; for video or still images, credit must be given to Drum Corps International as well as the photographer or video production agent."

DCI is also a copyright and trademark owner and expects compensation. But, they indicate they are willing to make exceptions. I'm particularly interested in this sentence, “Drum Corps International may grant permission to use the foregoing on a case-by-case basis.” (my emphasis) Would it be possible for DCI and the corps to get blanket permission to use copyrighted material on a season-by-season basis from the copyright owners? Have they tried that? That would be one simple way to solve the problem, but if the copyright owners insist on payment, then I think there's a more fair way to collect the money.

If anyone is earning profits from the DCI performances around the country it's the non-educational, for-profit entities like local hotels and motels, restaurants and other local businesses. It's these for-profit businesses who should be making the copyright payments, not DCI or member drum corps. I doubt it would include LOS. That's a HUGE building that must cost plenty to operate for three days. The city of Indianapolis is not a business but collects taxes from all the paying fans and the businesses they frequent while in town. The city certainly "profits" by having so many people spend their money each championship week.

I don't know how much money DCI collects from the sale of performance related merchandise like the championship DVDs, but from what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, after DCI covers it's considerable expenses in creating the merchandise, it divides the remaining proceeds with the member corps. There are no business profits being accrued by DCI or it's member corps.

It's my contention that because of the DCI performances, many fans are exposed to music and other performance material they've never known before and are therefore likely to purchase commercial CDs and DVDs from professional performing groups of this newly discovered material that they never would have been aware of without seeing the DCI performances, thus providing future royalties to the copyright holders. In effect, the DCI corps are providing free advertising for the copyright owners whose material they perform during the season. Much of this music is obscure to the general public and the copyright owners should be thankful for the added national exposure of their works by the DCI corps. Personally, I became interested in classical music in the early 1970s mostly because of Phantom Regiment and I have spent a lot of money in the last 40+ years buying commercial classical CDs, DVDs and attending professional perfomances where royalties are paid.

Let's remove this unnecessary legal burden from the corps and DCI who are only trying to provide a learning experience to the members and entertainment for the fans. There has to be a way to get an exemption for DCI. Anyone know a copyright attorney who might be sympathetic to presenting DCI's case?

You can take your corps into a classroom setting and play anything you want all day long. But as soon as you charge the first $1.00 for someone to just listen to them play something, you have entered the world of creative rights. Whether a trademark, copyright, patent, or creative right, the USA from its earliest days has encouraged creativity by extending "inventors" the protection surrounding their creation, AS IT SHOULD BE. The law does not need to be changed, the right fee must be agreed upon.

[MikeN]

So does that mean WGI posting things on Youtube for free does in fact get around that roadblock?

Mike

[BRASSO]

You can take your corps into a classroom setting and play anything you want all day long. But as soon as you charge the first $1.00 for someone to just listen to them play something, you have entered the world of creative rights. Whether a trademark, copyright, patent, or creative right, the USA from its earliest days has encouraged creativity by extending "inventors" the protection surrounding their creation, AS IT SHOULD BE. The law does not need to be changed, the right fee must be agreed upon.

I agree. Inventors need to have their hard work inventions protected as a fundamental Constitutional right... and have that protection iron clad, imo. It is regrettable however that inventors ( in this case inventors of music creations) can not see fit to voluntarily allow educational institutions be able to utilize their works in a mutually agreed to fashion. These things do get complicated however when an organization ( such as DCI ) charges a fee for people to hear these renditions with DCI's musical ensembles. DCI could utilize the services of a good lawyer lobbyist to work the publishing houses/ Congress on behalf of DCI/ WGI/ BOA, etc, imo.. But these organizations unfortunately seem too small to exert political leverage, and so thats the dilemna they currently find themselves in.

Edited August 13, 2015 by BRASSO

[N.E. Brigand]

And then the Bernstein estate had a small fit regarding the '09 Troopers and Cadets.

See, it's perfectly fine for Bernstein, et al. to transform Romeo & Juliet, a British play set in Italy, into West Side Story, an American musical set in New York, but it's ridiculous for the Troopers to transform the musical into a Western setting.

[cixelsyd]

I used the term "common sense" in the title of this post for a reason. I know what I was proposing is not legal based on the current copyright laws. I want the law to be changed based upon common sense usage of the material by educational and non-profit groups. As was stated, passing laws has nothing to do with common sense, but with how much money is behind the people wanting the law passed, in other words, politics. Most politicians will compromise common sense, morality, safety and many other virtues as long as they get hefty contributions from sponsors of legislation.

I still contend that when high school bands and drum corps perform copyrighted music, especially the material that's not commercially successful, the copyright holders will receive compensation derived from these performances when fans are exposed to this material for the first time and consequently purchase commercially available CDs, DVDs and tickets to public performances. The big name, financially well off copyright holders need to re-evaluate their thinking about not allowing educational organizations to perform their material without compensation. I don't know how many DVDs DCI sells but I can't imagine it amounts to a hill of beans to the big name copyright holders when compared to their gross receipts from commercial DVD and CD sales, movie, TV and other performance fees, some of which have been bringing in large fees for decades.

I suspect that the publishers believe they make more money by charging up front for use of the music, even if it costs them some of that derived following. But by all means, if you think you can convince the publishers to give their music away to schools (and drum corps) free of charge, go for it. Let us know how it works out.

[cf144]

OK - my $0.02

Do copyright holders have the right to be compensated for their creative works - darn tootin' they do.

BUT

The length of time they are granted those exclusive rights is simply ludicrous. I mean, c'mon - as much as 120 YEARS???

Let's compare to the pharmaceutical industry. New drugs are granted exclusivity for 20 YEARS AFTER INVENTION. That's INVENTION, not for sale on the market. Your average drug takes 8-10 years and millions (and sometimes tens of millions) of dollars to develop and bring to the market. That is 8-10 years of the exclusivity gone during development. And the vast majority of compounds being developed never come to market so the millions invested in them go down the toilet.

Now don't get me wrong - this isn't to say that pharmaceutical companies aren't obscenely profitable with what they do, they are. But to suggest that composers should have up to 120 years of exclusivity for their compositions but pharmaceutical companies only get 10-12 years (which is all that is typically left of the 20 years if/when a drug gets approved for sale) on a drug they expended years of research and millions of dollars to develop is beyond insane.

Looking at it a different way - if the rules applied to drugs like they do to music, every drug developed last century (including penicillin) would still be under patent and there would be no generics. If you think drugs are expensive now, can you imagine how much higher it would be without the generics?

Edited August 13, 2015 by cf144

[BRASSO]

I used the term "common sense" in the title of this post for a reason. I know what I was proposing is not legal based on the current copyright laws. I want the law to be changed based upon common sense usage of the material by educational and non-profit groups. As was stated, passing laws has nothing to do with common sense, but with how much money is behind the people wanting the law passed, in other words, politics. Most politicians will compromise common sense, morality, safety and many other virtues as long as they get hefty contributions from sponsors of legislation.

I still contend that when high school bands and drum corps perform copyrighted music, especially the material that's not commercially successful, the copyright holders will receive compensation derived from these performances when fans are exposed to this material for the first time and consequently purchase commercially available CDs, DVDs and tickets to public performances. The big name, financially well off copyright holders need to re-evaluate their thinking about not allowing educational organizations to perform their material without compensation. I don't know how many DVDs DCI sells but I can't imagine it amounts to a hill of beans to the big name copyright holders when compared to their gross receipts from commercial DVD and CD sales, movie, TV and other performance fees, some of which have been bringing in large fees for decades.

Under this scenario, should a DCI Drum Corps Brass Arranger be told that another DCI Corps, without his approval, and without any compensation to himself, be allowed to use his original written music arrangements as they see fit ? Why not ? His original music compositions fit your definition here of " not commercially successful ", and such arrangements would lead to " commercially available CD's, and ticket purchases to public performances ". ( see how its not as simple here as we sometimes think ? )

Edited August 13, 2015 by BRASSO

[JoeDz]

See, it's perfectly fine for Bernstein, et al. to transform Romeo & Juliet, a British play set in Italy, into West Side Story, an American musical set in New York, but it's ridiculous for the Troopers to transform the musical into a Western setting.

Even that is not so simple. From Wikipedia: In the original plan, INSPIRED by Romeo & Juliette, "...plot focus on the conflict between an Irish Catholic family and a Jewish family living on the Lower East Side of Manhattan,^[6] during the Easter–Passover season. The girl has survived the Holocaust and emigrated from Israel; the conflict was to be centered around anti-Semitism of the Catholic "Jets" towards the Jewish "Emeralds" (a name that made its way into the script as a reference). Eager to write his first musical, Laurents immediately agreed. Bernstein wanted to present the material in operatic form, but Robbins and Laurents resisted the suggestion. They described the project as "lyric theater", and Laurents wrote a first draft he called East Side Story. Only after he completed it did the group realize it was little more than a musicalization of themes that had already been covered in plays like Abie's Irish Rose. When he opted to drop out, the three men went their separate ways, and the piece was shelved for almost five years." They would have infringed on the rights to Abie's Irish Rose and been en early version of the DCI situation.......

[N.E. Brigand]

I did not know that. Fascinating!