WGI Zone no longer active

[C.Holland]

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

I understand this, but you can't have it both ways. And likely the years of doing before getting permissions properly helped lead to this, as well as the far reaches of internet piracy. I'm certain someday licensing companies will be more reasonable, but its going to take a few years of due diligence before this settles in. But again, one composer or arranger who gives it away for free, drives down the prices of the rest. Its the same as any design field. My rates have to go down because there are others who are willing to do the same job for less, even if I'm the better designer.

[tesmusic]

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.

Yes I'm sure.

[perc2100]

I understand this, but you can't have it both ways. And likely the years of doing before getting permissions properly helped lead to this, as well as the far reaches of internet piracy. I'm certain someday licensing companies will be more reasonable, but its going to take a few years of due diligence before this settles in. But again, one composer or arranger who gives it away for free, drives down the prices of the rest. Its the same as any design field. My rates have to go down because there are others who are willing to do the same job for less, even if I'm the better designer.

You're absolutely right, and if we're erring on one side of this issue I'd err on the side of the artist rather than the drum corps/winter guard. Especially the decades where WGI, DCI, BOA, etc. didn't compensate anything as far as sync rights (or even arranging stuff, as was the practice from the beginning up through the 90s).

[MikeN]

Well, ####.

Mike

[perc2100]

Yes I'm sure.

As far as I've researched the laws as written are incredibly broad, and not 100% explicit either way.

[N.E. Brigand]

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.

Agreed on the notion that artists should be paid for their work. But in the context of a world where copyright now lasts for 100 years and where licensing costs so much that DCI can't afford to sell more than the top twelve and DCA can't afford to sell anything, I think the pirates rather than the artists are on the side of the angels.

[lindap]

Well, ####.

Mike

Ditto and doggie doo too

Linda

US to CDN exchange rate ain't helping. If I save $40 on a 3 day live feed (I get 1 day off work;) gotta pay an extra $40 or so. Go figure! I'll save my pennies and go to Dayton next year darn tootin'

edit: Searched darn tootin' expectin' to find Yosemite Sam and found Laurel and Hardy lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z_Tl-1CthM

Edited April 5, 2016 by lindap

[corpsband]

I understand this, but you can't have it both ways. And likely the years of doing before getting permissions properly helped lead to this, as well as the far reaches of internet piracy. I'm certain someday licensing companies will be more reasonable, but its going to take a few years of due diligence before this settles in. But again, one composer or arranger who gives it away for free, drives down the prices of the rest. Its the same as any design field. My rates have to go down because there are others who are willing to do the same job for less, even if I'm the better designer.

Laudable thoughts. Except that the artist isn't really a player at this table.

Crying "artist, artist" is a just a straw man argument.

This whole issue revolves around a handful of companies who -- while once kings of their empire -- are now entirely irrelevant. And the outrageous fees are merely part of their desperate claw at remaining viable.

I fully support artists -- and only artists -- getting paid for their work. But the fees we're discussing here have little to do with artists getting "paid".

It's a war. I'm pretty sure the good guys are going to prevail. The nature of the inter-tubes pretty much guarantees it.

Unfortunately a lot of little innocents (like DCI) will probably end up as collateral damage.

As for fans being able to see performances online, outrageous licensing fees will simply force the distribution channels to adjust. They always do.

[garfield]

As far as I've researched the laws as written are incredibly broad, and not 100% explicit either way.

The mark of a good lawyer.

[Jeff Ream]

Laudable thoughts. Except that the artist isn't really a player at this table.

Crying "artist, artist" is a just a straw man argument.

This whole issue revolves around a handful of companies who -- while once kings of their empire -- are now entirely irrelevant. And the outrageous fees are merely part of their desperate claw at remaining viable.

I fully support artists -- and only artists -- getting paid for their work. But the fees we're discussing here have little to do with artists getting "paid".

It's a war. I'm pretty sure the good guys are going to prevail. The nature of the inter-tubes pretty much guarantees it.

Unfortunately a lot of little innocents (like DCI) will probably end up as collateral damage.

As for fans being able to see performances online, outrageous licensing fees will simply force the distribution channels to adjust. They always do.

as long as those writing the laws can be swayed bt lobbyists money, the little guy will always be screwed