bill Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 Good point. So I guess the question then should be why doesn't DCI become a CLIENT of Tresona? Wouldn't that keep everyone happy (assuming it wouldn't be ridiculously expensive)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqwg2Hzn5sw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 One thing to take into consideration is that this can all change in a very positive way, thinking optimistically of course. If that U.S. The case, these products all may very well be available again in some format. Recordings of the shows/finals CAN be done legally and a copy CAN be kept of all shows regardless of sync rights, etc. if the copy is made for to keep in a historic archive. That said, if this mess ever improves in a positive way, then we may very well see these items again. Think optimistically of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 17, 2015 Author Share Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) Quad Aces to answer your question and my work computer uses IE which won't let me use the quote feature right ( dear DCp fix this)....the out come was on the dvds and probably the cd's, the tune was cut out. what instances like this and others have caused is now corps have a "must be cleared by" date, or basically if what i hear is true, DCI is telling them " can't play it at our events". So instead of waiting til the last minute, or getting ideas in mid July and not having clearances.....too bad so sad. One instance of 4 notes added to a show a few years ago cost DCI $13,000 to get it cleared. what would it take to get it taken care of? DCI wouldn't be truly partners with tresona.Tresona knows they have DCI over a barrell. DCI would spend a fortune they don't have. Tresona basically would be the mafia, and legally, they could get away with it no offense, but a designer shouldn't have to worry about sync rights. a designer should design. so while you wish to assign a blame to them about a score....that's their job! to design a show that gets a score, not sells a dvd. Edited December 17, 2015 by Jeff Ream 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) Quad Aces to answer your question and my work computer uses IE which won't let me use the quote feature right ( dear DCp fix this)....the out come was on the dvds and probably the cd's, the tune was cut out. what instances like this and others have caused is now corps have a "must be cleared by" date, or basically if what i hear is true, DCI is telling them " can't play it at our events". So instead of waiting til the last minute, or getting ideas in mid July and not having clearances.....too bad so sad. One instance of 4 notes added to a show a few years ago cost DCI $13,000 to get it cleared. what would it take to get it taken care of? DCI wouldn't be truly partners with tresona.Tresona knows they have DCI over a barrell. DCI would spend a fortune they don't have. Tresona basically would be the mafia, and legally, they could get away with it no offense, but a designer shouldn't have to worry about sync rights. a designer should design. so while you wish to assign a blame to them about a score....that's their job! to design a show that gets a score, not sells a dvd. But you see, there-in lies the problem. Designers have only been able to get away with ignorance of licensing because their employers have told them that sync rights are a DCI problem not a corps problem. But if the corps executive planners allow designers to ignore the impact of rights we end up exactly where we are - where corps can claim victory but can't get paid for it. It the end, the activity survives by selling, not scores. To allow designers to ignore rights and, in particular, to have designers/directors/show executives ignore rights attainment by substituting music mid-season only to win, only then to blame DCI for failing to attain rights that provide cash flow, is institutionalized hubris that is destroying the activity. Attendance is up. Why screw it up? Why not ask designers to design with rights-obtainable music so it can be sold? What's wrong with that? I don't think it's asking too much. Everyone up and down the activity are being asked to sacrifice for the rights-cause. Are designers exempt because it's their "art"? Edited December 17, 2015 by garfield 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 Quad Aces, to answer your question: my work computer uses IE, which won't let me use the quote feature right (dear DCp fix this) . . . Jeff, if you right-click on the Quote button, you should be able to choose "Open Link in New Tab", which I have found makes it possible to quote DCP posts while using IE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quad Aces Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 But you see, there-in lies the problem. Designers have only been able to get away with ignorance of licensing because their employers have told them that sync rights are a DCI problem not a corps problem. But if the corps executive planners allow designers to ignore the impact of rights we end up exactly where we are - where corps can claim victory but can't get paid for it. It the end, the activity survives by selling, not scores. To allow designers to ignore rights and, in particular, to have designers/directors/show executives ignore rights attainment by substituting music mid-season only to win, only then to blame DCI for failing to attain rights that provide cash flow, is institutionalized hubris that is destroying the activity. Attendance is up. Why screw it up? Why not ask designers to design with rights-obtainable music so it can be sold? What's wrong with that? I don't think it's asking too much. Everyone up and down the activity are being asked to sacrifice for the rights-cause. Are designers exempt because it's their "art"? Well said. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share Posted December 18, 2015 But you see, there-in lies the problem. Designers have only been able to get away with ignorance of licensing because their employers have told them that sync rights are a DCI problem not a corps problem. But if the corps executive planners allow designers to ignore the impact of rights we end up exactly where we are - where corps can claim victory but can't get paid for it. It the end, the activity survives by selling, not scores. To allow designers to ignore rights and, in particular, to have designers/directors/show executives ignore rights attainment by substituting music mid-season only to win, only then to blame DCI for failing to attain rights that provide cash flow, is institutionalized hubris that is destroying the activity. Attendance is up. Why screw it up? Why not ask designers to design with rights-obtainable music so it can be sold? What's wrong with that? I don't think it's asking too much. Everyone up and down the activity are being asked to sacrifice for the rights-cause. Are designers exempt because it's their "art"? in the end, the acivity lives by scores which draw people to events and generate interest. DCI and the corps aren't getting rich off of dvd sales. But, by having the "must be cleared by date", it does force designers to consider it, or at least have plan B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share Posted December 18, 2015 Jeff, if you right-click on the Quote button, you should be able to choose "Open Link in New Tab", which I have found makes it possible to quote DCP posts while using IE. thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 in the end, the acivity lives by scores which draw people to events and generate interest. DCI and the corps aren't getting rich off of dvd sales. But, by having the "must be cleared by date", it does force designers to consider it, or at least have plan B Spoken like a judge but, of course, you're right to a degree (a small one, IMO). But I can't square your general claim when A) there are so few corps in competition, and B) the finals placements have been relatively unchanging for decades. Even during the ABBD years when show design was Tilting ($1 to me) towards incomprehensible and finals placements seemed to elicit as many as it did golf claps, media sales were driven by entertainment, not competition. Where you are wrong, of course, is that you can't pay for rights or anything else unless fans buy your records and tapes. I've said it before and IMO it's increasingly true that the activity will survive on entertainment without competition, but it won't survive on competition alone. But, hey, I don't know where the Dow Jones will finish today, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 in the end, the acivity lives by scores which draw people to events and generate interest. DCI and the corps aren't getting rich off of dvd sales. They were before designers started picking songs and samples with no regard to licensing costs. More importantly, the A/V media are often the "gateway drug" for introducing drum corps to new fans and future participants. Good design could grow the activity. Design that gets edited off the video, not so much. 1 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.