2015 DCI DVD/Blu-Ray to be Top-12 Only

[Kamarag]

Gotcha. When you wrote above that "the DVD/CD production company" is responsible for securing rights, you meant DCI/DCA. I misunderstood.

You didn't misunderstand at all. The production company that DCI/DCA contracts *can* be involved in the process, and can be responsible for securing the rights. I don't know how the contracts are written, but it can go either way. Some band circuits do it that way...they contract the video company to do it all (including keeping whatever profit is made in the process).

Edited February 9, 2016 by Kamarag

[Jeff Ream]

Yes, of course, and I said the same thing:

At this end of the spectrum, the price is infintity. The rights cannot be purchased at any price. Any price is too low.

At the other end of the spectrum: The rights are free.

Betweeen those two points, everything is subject to negotiation. It is simply, and only, a matter of how much the performer is willing to pay (in terms of cash and restrictions on artistic license [itself a form of cost]), and how much money and loss of artistic control the creator is willing to accept.

So, to repeat: DCA's inability to produce DVDs is not something out of its control, as it implied in its public statement. To the contrary, it was entirely within DCA's control to agree to pay the price(s) for the rights. DCA may have found those prices unreasonable, but that does not put a decision to pay the price beyond its control.

It also is completely within DCA's control to decide whether to perform compositions whose creators have declared their work to be off-limits in the first place.

The buying and selling of intellectual property is not a force of nature. All of it is subject to human terms and conditions. DCA would have been more forthright to issue a statement that said they simply couldn't afford the prices being demanded for the DVD rights. Everyone would have understood.

this just shows DCAs business model needs a serious overhaul

[Jeff Ream]

I disagree only with your phrasing, not with your argument: if DCA truly "couldn't afford the prices being demanded", then the "decision to [not] pay the price" is actually "beyond its control". In that situation, DCA could hardly have decided otherwise (they couldn't pay with money they didn't have).

But yes, it is indeed the sellers' prerogative to set the prices higher than the buyer can afford, if that's what they want. No disagreement there.

I do find it strange that the rights holders have chosen to forgo this revenue though. Not sure what the upside is for them. And the big rights holders don't control everything, so there are probably some small rights holders who were perfectly happy to license audio/video rights to DCA, but now will see no income because no product is being produced.

As for what DCA should have done about corps selecting music for which it would later turn out mechanical and synchronization rights were going to be unavailable, for 2015, I would guess that conditions changed too quickly for them to have done anything. Through 2014, DCA apparently had reasonable working relationships with the license-holding companies which resulted, as with DCI, in most works getting cleared for audio/video products after the close of each season, with a few bits being cut here and there. By the time the 2014 products were being issued based on that history, corps had already selected their 2015 repertoires, and presumably were able to obtain the arrangement and performance rights as they had previously done. It was in January 2015 that the Fan Network issues first arose, as I recall, and for many months after that, the scuttlebutt was that those problems would soon be cleared up. DCA could hardly have told all the corps to change their 2015 repertoires in May!

DCA was like everyone else prior to 2015. Then came along Tresona.

and now when lots of companies found out they weren't getting what they should have been all along, they can,and did decide to play hardball.

[Jeff Ream]

You describe the status quo very well, "period, stop", but why does it have to stay that way?

Might it not be beneficial for the members of DCA or DCI to agree to change the requirements so that corps have to obtain mechanical and synchronization licenses at the same time they obtain arranging and performance licenses? I work in live theatre, where starting about ten years ago, the various producing organizations, through their collective bargaining units (Broadway producers, Off-Broadway producers, League of Resident Theatres, etc.) negotiated with the actors', directors', and designers' unions to be allowed to make much greater use of video footage of our shows than had previously been possible. Why? Because being able to post video of your show on Youtube helps sell tickets, or being able to let a foundation post some video of the show they're sponsoring on their own website makes them a happier sponsor. With absolutely no 2015 DCA video apparently available, hasn't DCA just lost all sorts of marketing opportunities? Fewer tickets sold by DCA ultimately hurts the corps, right? (Not that DCA, as far as I can tell, was doing all that much along these lines in the first place.)

first you assume DCA markets.

Then you also assume DCA has DCI money. They don't, and DCI isn't rich. I'd imagine an examination of DCA corps 990's would make people's heads explode

[Jeff Ream]

You didn't misunderstand at all. The production company that DCI/DCA contracts *can* be involved in the process, and can be responsible for securing the rights. I don't know how the contracts are written, but it can go either way. Some band circuits do it that way...they contract the video company to do it all (including keeping whatever profit is made in the process).

correct. the issue really on dvd's and cd's is who owns it?

well DCI and DCA owned it, they hired someone to film and produce it.

[N.E. Brigand]

First, you assume DCA markets.

Then you also assume DCA has DCI money.

Well, I didn't assume that at all. That's why I wrote, "Not that DCA, as far as I can tell, was doing all that much along these lines in the first place." (And anyone who follows these forums knows that DCA has less money than DCI; you yourself have probably made that point a dozen times here.) But DCA had been making some small efforts to promote itself online lately, and not having video will be a step backwards.

[N.E. Brigand]

DCA was like everyone else prior to 2015. Then came along Tresona.

And now when lots of companies found out they weren't getting what they should have been all along, they can,and did decide to play hardball.

I do wish we knew more about what these companies "should have been getting all along". DCI and DCA clearly had been paying for something. (Why would they excise snippets of some shows from the videos except that they couldn't get the synch rights to those portions but had gotten the synch rights for the rest?) As regards DCI, Dan Acheson is on the record as saying that they thought they were doing what they were supposed to. What's not clear is what they weren't doing, and when they weren't doing it. For that matter, it's not even clear that Tresona et al. are right that DCI (and DCA) were wrong. The general impression we've had on the forums is that Tresona decided to interpret some rules in a different way, and bullied the corps and bands into accepting that interpretation. At first, this looked like strictly an internet rights problem, but clearly it's expanded to somehow include the hard-copy video synch rights. Why?

(And as regards DCA, the result is that all composers, whether represented by Tresona or not, will now get nothing at all. Sorry Key Poulan!)

[Jeff Ream]

Well, I didn't assume that at all. That's why I wrote, "Not that DCA, as far as I can tell, was doing all that much along these lines in the first place." (And anyone who follows these forums knows that DCA has less money than DCI; you yourself have probably made that point a dozen times here.) But DCA had been making some small efforts to promote itself online lately, and not having video will be a step backwards.

Key words in sales: you have to spend money to make money. But you have to do it legally

[perc2100]

You didn't misunderstand at all. The production company that DCI/DCA contracts *can* be involved in the process, and can be responsible for securing the rights. I don't know how the contracts are written, but it can go either way. Some band circuits do it that way...they contract the video company to do it all (including keeping whatever profit is made in the process).

Yeah some circuits contract out but "help" the production company (who sells the videos independently) by requiring groups to clear all necessary rights before the competition. If a group doesn't do that, then they can possibly still compete but they won't be on the DVD. I know of a regional winter circuit that for awhile did this, and it got to be quite a hassle: parents who's kid's group don't get a DVD complain to the band director who sent the parent to the production company who sends them to the circuit rep. who essentially says "band director didn't get the rights and an outside company does video so it's not our responsibility anyway."

Securing the rights has become a real complicated, sometimes time consuming hassle.

[Kamarag]

Yeah some circuits contract out but "help" the production company (who sells the videos independently) by requiring groups to clear all necessary rights before the competition. If a group doesn't do that, then they can possibly still compete but they won't be on the DVD. I know of a regional winter circuit that for awhile did this, and it got to be quite a hassle: parents who's kid's group don't get a DVD complain to the band director who sent the parent to the production company who sends them to the circuit rep. who essentially says "band director didn't get the rights and an outside company does video so it's not our responsibility anyway."

Securing the rights has become a real complicated, sometimes time consuming hassle.

I think there's either more to that story or you're relating it incorrectly. It is *never* on the band director to secure synch rights for a circuit or production company. In fact, the rights holders won't even discuss those rights unless the band director is a producer for the proposed media. That's why it's absurd to consider a rule requiring bands/corps to "be able to secure synch rights".

Though I suppose it's not beyond the realm of possibility that circut's administration said that to make the parents go away, even if it's a rediculous thing to say.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Kamarag