perc2100 Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 The mark of a good lawyer. Ha: too bad I'm a teacher. But I've always had a knack for arguing so at least there's that :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Ha: too bad I'm a teacher. But I've always had a knack for arguing so at least there's that :) Any teacher who has had to engage in parent-teacher night when it comes to grade assessment discussions could definitely argue successfully before most supreme courts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Holland Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 as long as those writing the laws can be swayed bt lobbyists money, the little guy will always be screwed The artists do get paid. They chose to be represented, they chose to have someone collect those fees for them so that they have stable paychecks. Otherwise they would spend more time chasing fees than making music. Everyone is just grumpy that they can't watch a video online. Well, years of stealing has lead to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Holland Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 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. Works published after 1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. well... you can't have it both ways. a composer wants a steady paycheck and his family and estate to be taken care of. he/she also doesn't have the time to chase fees for everything. they don't. so they let the publisher do it. the publisher has overhead to cover and the inter webs to scour. you're mad you can't watch a video of a corps that used music from 20 years ago that they never paid a royalty on. wah. seriously. you want to write some hate mail? send it to Hal Leonard. That's who's got the largest library that's screwing everyone over with their blanket agreement. Tresona only covers so much, but Hal... (who is under tresona) yeah they've got everything. They've go so much that I'm certain you're going to see corps, bands, etc deciding collectively that they aren't going to use that library anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 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. True, BUT artists sold the rights at some point. Maybe not a great deal for them down-the-road in hindsight, but the artists sold the rights nonetheless. Obviously this is a very complicated issue from ALL angles. It's easy to cry fowl at the corporations exploiting laws to make profit, but there really are so many issues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 The artists do get paid. They chose to be represented, they chose to have someone collect those fees for them so that they have stable paychecks. Otherwise they would spend more time chasing fees than making music. Everyone is just grumpy that they can't watch a video online. Well, years of stealing has lead to this. i am fine with it, not grumpy at all. I see both sides. And yes, the activity abused the rules for too long. However I do se where the lobbyists will only work to make the laws stronger, to possibly the point it hurts them worse than if we went back to say the way it was 4 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 you're mad you can't watch a video of a corps that used music from 20 years ago that they never paid a royalty on. wah. Or maybe we are just mad that the corps who did pay royalties have their videos swept up in the ensuing ####storm. Everyone is just grumpy that they can't watch a video online. Well, years of stealing has lead to this. That is one perspective. You know, there was a time when drum corps were told they did not have to pay royalties because they were not even considered "musical". And as long as drum corps kept to themselves and refrained from competing with musicians for paying gigs, all was well. Not sure "stealing" is the most appropriate term for that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quad Aces Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) You know, there was a time when drum corps were told they did not have to pay royalties because they were not even considered "musical". Who did the telling back then? Sounds pretty misguided right from the get go. Edited April 7, 2016 by Quad Aces 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Or maybe we are just mad that the corps who did pay royalties have their videos swept up in the ensuing ####storm. That is one perspective. You know, there was a time when drum corps were told they did not have to pay royalties because they were not even considered "musical". And as long as drum corps kept to themselves and refrained from competing with musicians for paying gigs, all was well. Not sure "stealing" is the most appropriate term for that situation. Drum corps were *never* told that by publishers and rights holders. That old wive's tale is what drum corps told themselves to excuse the fact that they were indeed stealing. Other variations on the fallacy were, "Bugles only have two valves, so because they can't play all the notes, they aren't real instruments. So no need to pay for rights." and "Drum corps don't have woodwinds, so they aren't real bands. Only real bands have to pay for arranging/performance rights." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Drum corps were *never* told that by publishers and rights holders. That old wive's tale is what drum corps told themselves to excuse the fact that they were indeed stealing. Other variations on the fallacy were, "Bugles only have two valves, so because they can't play all the notes, they aren't real instruments. So no need to pay for rights." and "Drum corps don't have woodwinds, so they aren't real bands. Only real bands have to pay for arranging/performance rights." Or maybe even "drum corps are educational so they don't need to pay rights: it's non-profit and no one is making money on the activity" 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.