WGI Zone no longer active

[leed17]

Looks like the WGI Zone has been taken down due to copyright concerns. I was wondering over these last few months that it was up how that was allowed and other things were not. Looks like that was not in compliance either.

The copyright saga continues...I will treasure getting my DCI Bluray in the mail soon, and not take it for granted.

[gbass598]

Well, it was nice to be able to tell people I was once able to see videos of the marching arts. I'm sure the next generation will never believe me that they used to exist.

[lindap]

The saga of copyright issues negates the importance of historical and educational topics? Society has become here and now and a tad greedy for me. Big Sigh!

[tesmusic]

The saga of copyright issues negates the importance of historical and educational topics? Society has become here and now and a tad greedy for me. Big Sigh!

The copyright problems are major concerns for sure. But as for not being able to record for historical or educational purposes, that is not true.

DCI, WGI, BOA, etc. can record FOR historical and educational purposes, such as archives. The issue is, and has always been they way the the videos are then used for streaming, DVD/Blu-Ray, etc.

So performances, finals, etc. can and are recorded, but cannot necessarily be shared with the public.

As the laws and rules are changed, some, maybe all these videos and services may be available again, but this is new territory due to the availability of streaming services.

The other issues are the fact that these laws do not "grandfather" in recordings made years ago. So if a DCI, WGI, the various performing groups received all copyright clearances 20 years ago, they are in a sense void due to new rules, thanks to new technology.

[C.Holland]

To be honest, this is a good thing. It means that composers and arrangers actually have legitimacy on the protection of their work. Yes it stinks because people can't share it freely, but then again, can someone share your goods and services for free from your jobs? Likely not. Just because its a pastime to many, doesn't mean creating music is a pastime to others. Art work, is still work.

[BRASSO]

Society has become here and now and a tad greedy for me. Big Sigh!

I would have to agree. I never quite understood the rationale behind some people's greedy claim that THEY are entitled to the uncompensated use of another Artist or Musician's work of toil, sacrifice, risk, and without their permission, nor agreed terms of use. Some people just don't want to create and build something themselves. They just want to willy nilly take what others have produced. They feel entitled to rationalize that it makes perfect sense to just quickly take what others have, and give to themselves instead in the " here and now ", ..and for free to boot. And yes, you are correct, imo.. this attitude is more than a " tad greedy ", and symbolic of what " society has become ".

Edited April 4, 2016 by BRASSO

[perc2100]

The copyright problems are major concerns for sure. But as for not being able to record for historical or educational purposes, that is not true.

DCI, WGI, BOA, etc. can record FOR historical and educational purposes, such as archives. The issue is, and has always been they way the the videos are then used for streaming, DVD/Blu-Ray, etc.

So performances, finals, etc. can and are recorded, but cannot necessarily be shared with the public.

As the laws and rules are changed, some, maybe all these videos and services may be available again, but this is new territory due to the availability of streaming services.

The other issues are the fact that these laws do not "grandfather" in recordings made years ago. So if a DCI, WGI, the various performing groups received all copyright clearances 20 years ago, they are in a sense void due to new rules, thanks to new technology.

Are you 100% sure about that? I was talking to a show coordinator last month who said this is not entirely true, and ANY syncing of music to video could be seen as a copyright violation: historical archives & educational purposes included. There are some who take a broad definition of "educational purposes," but that might not necessarily hold up in a copyright court (from what I've been told at least: by people who could be in a position to be legally held liable and were either being very conservatively cautious or actually did legit legal research/consulted a copyright lawyer). I've always thought "educational purposes" was a good blanket provision for an organization to record performances, but I was told that is not necessarily the case. Maybe, say, Cadets can record their own show for their own purposes, but I don't think DCI can necessarily record Cadets for their own purposes w/out securing all necessary rights.

[C.Holland]

I would have to agree. I never quite understood the rationale behind some people's greedy claim that THEY are entitled to the uncompensated use of another Artist or Musician's work of toil, sacrifice, risk, and without their permission, nor agreed terms of use. Some people just don't want to create and build something themselves. They just want to willy nilly take what others have produced. They feel entitled to rationalize that it makes perfect sense to just quickly take what others have, and give to themselves instead in the " here and now ", ..and for free to boot. And yes, you are correct, imo.. this attitude is more than a " tad greedy ", and symbolic of what " society has become ".

I see what you did there. hahahaha.

[perc2100]

To be honest, this is a good thing. It means that composers and arrangers actually have legitimacy on the protection of their work. Yes it stinks because people can't share it freely, but then again, can someone share your goods and services for free from your jobs? Likely not. Just because its a pastime to many, doesn't mean creating music is a pastime to others. Art work, is still work.

Yes and no. I've talked to composers who are 100% personally in favor of outside, non-profit scholastic and educational groups arranging/performing their own music but since the rights are held by a third party they are not in their control.

I am with you in the sense that sync rights as they relate to professionally sold media SHOULD be protected in order for artists to be properly compensated. I think in this specific instance, however, the line is tipped a bit more into greed than 'for the good of artists/society.' Based on some information I was told this winter season I think there could be a better balance.

And perhaps we will find one eventually. Maybe rights holders are playing hard ball now to get the message across and eventually things will even out where artists will be properly compensated at a price that is affordable for non-profits

[C.Holland]

Are you 100% sure about that? I was talking to a show coordinator last month who said this is not entirely true, and ANY syncing of music to video could be seen as a copyright violation: historical archives & educational purposes included. There are some who take a broad definition of "educational purposes," but that might not necessarily hold up in a copyright court (from what I've been told at least: by people who could be in a position to be legally held liable and were either being very conservatively cautious or actually did legit legal research/consulted a copyright lawyer). I've always thought "educational purposes" was a good blanket provision for an organization to record performances, but I was told that is not necessarily the case. Maybe, say, Cadets can record their own show for their own purposes, but I don't think DCI can necessarily record Cadets for their own purposes w/out securing all necessary rights.

My sister in law who works in music copyright tells me that "educational purposes" means you are using it in a performance that is inside an institution. Not being recorded and sold outside of that. It is used for archival purposes, or for a group to watch themselves to see how they perform and evaluate themselves. It cannot be redistributed in any means.