ajlisko Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) >>>...there's no well to tap.<<< ... but, though the Corps may be dead, I'm still alive ... this is not encouraging, to say the least ... I always thought my own stuff was ... well ... my own stuff ... time for more red wine ... Edited February 10, 2016 by ajlisko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 >>>...there's no well to tap.<<< ... but, though the Corps may be dead, I'm still alive ... this is not encouraging, to say the least ... I always thought my onw stuff was ... well ... my own stuff ... time for more red wine ... It's your own stuff if the sense than no other percussion arranger can use it. But it's still tied to the arranging rights of the tune you arranged (whether you had the rights or not). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) >>>See no one enforced stuff back then because you couldn't find it so easily<<< Okay ... you lost me here ... licensing wasn't enforced because what couldn't be found easily? ... We all knew there were copyright laws back then ... we just never knew what they meant ... I always thought an original copyright was good for 17 years (that sound familiar to anyone?) ... the subject matter Big W and Adcock are disclosing is way beyond my comprehension ... and the layering between arranging, performing, syncing (still don't know what that means) and visual/movement vs. just the written score is mind boggling ... at least for me ... Just finished shoveling another 6" here in CT ... time for some nice red wine ... I might write a new solo tonight and copyright it ... not that anyone would ever use it ... it's just the principle ... :-) in the 50's-early 90's, you couldnever find stuff all over the place on the internet. Now these companies have people whose job is to scour the internet all day and look for violations. so even websites advertising old drum corps records/cds/etc could be nailed Edited February 12, 2016 by Jeff Ream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Matczak Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 in the 50's-early 90's, you could find stuff all over the place on the internet. Now these companies have people whose job is to scour the internet all day and look for violations. so even websites advertising old drum corps records/cds/etc could be nailed wait,..............when did al gore invent the internet? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 wait,..............when did al gore invent the internet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajlisko Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 >>>wait,..............when did al gore invent the internet?<<< Well ... according to the current Internet (and it must be true because it's on the Internet): Al Gore served as the Vice President of the United States from 1993 to 2001. He is the co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. In the 1980s and 1990s, he promoted legislation that funded an expansion of the ARPANET, allowing greater public access, and helping to develop the Internet. Sooooo ... there ya have it ... :-) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Holland Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Piracy and file sharing wasn't as rampant before the internet and the electronic distribution of audio files. Way back in the day, when everything was hard copy, everyone in the music business knew what was pressed and sold by the purchase orders. (this applied to records, tapes, and CDs) There was no other way to get music unless you either bought or copied that bootleg from your buddy who went to the Grateful Dead concert, or purchased a hard copy. So money movement was easier to track for legit sales. There also was way less given away because it took someone with the gear to copy and get you a copy of it. There also was no major way to distribute illegally at high volumes. But with the introduction of Napster, google drive...etc.. you can send a copy of anything within seconds, and that person who downloaded can then send it... and so on and so on and so on. But you can literally search for any audio file now thanks to google, and maybe download it bypassing the person's who wrote, recorded, edited, processed, distributed and marketed that piece of music. Or with youtube, you can simply click to view. Airplay drives business and sales. File sharing like youtube, napster...etc kill that airplay. They also kill those sales of hard copy or electronically sold items. So in this day and age, fees are sometimes negotiated of what can be made from these recordings and videos. Think of it this way, if one person buys that DCA finals dvd, and uploads each corps to Youtube, how many people will view it, instead of purchasing that dvd? That's a lot of money lost. Because in the end, music is still a business. You can't separate non profits from for profit organizations because anyone can register your group as a non-profit. And copyright can be renewed as long as the holder wants to do it. Think of all those Beatles songs that were held for years by Michael Jackson (and you never heard them in a commercial), and then the estate sold them off one by one. Now, if youtube had a pay per view sort of manner, or DCA/DCI had a pay per view on their own website, where the viewer's fees paid for that individual rights to view one time or for 24 hours like an On-demand rental, and that money was passed directly onto the licensing companies, that could help the situation. But those costs are passed directly onto the viewer. So who knows what that % would be. But there wouldn't be any download ability. And DCA/DCI need someone manning tech support for it so that viewers don't have bad feeds, or if their video cuts off mid stream. etc. >>>See no one enforced stuff back then because you couldn't find it so easily<<< Okay ... you lost me here ... licensing wasn't enforced because what couldn't be found easily? ... We all knew there were copyright laws back then ... we just never knew what they meant ... I always thought an original copyright was good for 17 years (that sound familiar to anyone?) ... the subject matter Big W and Adcock are disclosing is way beyond my comprehension ... and the layering between arranging, performing, syncing (still don't know what that means) and visual/movement vs. just the written score is mind boggling ... at least for me ... Just finished shoveling another 6" here in CT ... time for some nice red wine ... I might write a new solo tonight and copyright it ... not that anyone would ever use it ... it's just the principle ... :-) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Chris H quote: "Now, if youtube had a pay per view sort of manner, or DCA/DCI had a pay per view on their own website, where the viewer's fees paid for that individual rights to view one time or for 24 hours like an On-demand rental, and that money was passed directly onto the licensing companies, that could help the situation. But those costs are passed directly onto the viewer. So who knows what that % would be. But there wouldn't be any download ability. And DCA/DCI need someone manning tech support for it so that viewers don't have bad feeds, or if their video cuts off mid stream. etc. " They kind of do- VEVO in effect are the official channels of various artists and there is advertising. The question would be how much revenue is gained and who gets it. You've largely hit the nail very square on the head with this, Chris. Took a couple of Music Marketing courses a couple of years back and would recommend them to anyone with the time. Very informative, exceptionally well taught. The crux is this. Revenues were coming into the Music Industry like water through a firehose. They didn't really need to worry about the issue in a truly serious way. I still remember hanging with an old friend at UPenn and discovering the bootleg vinyl stuff out there in various stores and that his friends had. Again, very rare, esoteric, underground/counterculture stuff that made no real dent into profits. The main issue with recordings like those were that in many or most cases they were sub-par, or that the performers/artists likely didn't feel they were things that represented their best work. When the money dried up, and also add in the effect of what is now effectively a glut of talented artists out there now- the industry took a radical tumble, and now, they want their money, and want it now, any way they can obtain it. Modern artists aren't making their money off of recording contracts now- it's why you see so much touring and tickets are spicy. It's how they're earning their real income. On another level... you have the wind band people like Stamp and Sparke. For people like them and us, say, 15 HS bands a year fork over 3-4K for rights to their compositions. That's real money for them and a nice tidy little side income. All about supply and demand here. The problem as Jeff has said would be how DCI and DCA, and USBands negotiate this stuff. The problem in effect would be this, and I don't know if they've taken this tack-- "Look, we're only gonna sell this many of these things. They cost X to produce. We can sell them at Y. Estimated total profit is Z. Can we negotiate a cut of this where we get some small slice of the profit and you take whatever lion's share of the percentage of it so we don't lose our axxes over this?" Usually, organizations like this will take whatever money they can grab rather than get zero in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajlisko Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Okay ... time for some levity in all of this ... I don't know where this will go ... kinda "off the cuff" : Copyright Police: Hi Mr . Diddle Para Diddle : Please, call me Para CP: How can I help you? PD: Someone is stealing my diddles without permission ... they're mine and I want royalties ... I invented the Para-diddle CP: Hmmm ... can I hear a sample of the stolen music? PD: Sure ... RLRR ... LRLL CP: Hmmm ... sounds like 16th notes to me ... PD: BUT ... it's not RLRL ... it's RLRR CP: So ... it's an interpretation PD: NO ... it's a pattern ... CP: Yes, of 16th notes ... PD: But ... but ... my pattern goes RLRR ... LRLL ... not RLRL RLRL ... you see the difference? Mine is unique! CP: Hmmm ... Mr. Double Stroke was in here the other day ... sounded the same as his: RRLL ... RRLL ... not to mention the Mr. Single Stroke came in the other day and said you infringed on his territory ... PD: BUT!!!!! ... Mine is UNIQUE!!!! ... Every non-drummer in the universe knows the Paradiddle ... it's the first thing out of their mouths when they meet a drummer ... CP: I see ... but the others do have a valid point ... especially Single and Double Stroke ... your variation would be considered a "hybrid" of both ... DP: ... BUT ... BUT ... CP: Sorry Mr. Diddle ... looks like you owe Single and Double a lot of back payment for rudiment infringement ... DP: But ... but ... I AM PARA ... PARA DIDDLE ... the MOST popular rudiment EVER ... Single and Double owe EVERYTHING to me! CP: Hmmm ... not if they came first ... :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I'm just a fan, not a participant, so it is only belatedly occurring to me that there are a lot of marching members from last season who--as opposed to me, who was able to watch championships live--will be, due to this news, unable to see any 2015 shows at all (not just their own). 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.