Eleran Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Jay Bocook was one of the big names writing the published charts being sold to the High Schools while on staff at Hal Leonard. I can only surmise that Hal Leonard was therefore aware of the existence of drum corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 I think if it put more money into the bank, minimized the impact on the organization and corps, and shut up all the old farts screaming that they can't see another rerun of something... they'd do it in a heartbeat. probably faster than a heartbeat. And the licensing agents would get their 9 to 25 cents per download (like on iTunes) and be ok with it. It just needs to find a way to stay off of youtube or other sharing sites. Maybe a better option is to just put it on iTunes. DCI corps and rights' holders can make a mutual agreement of profit-sharing or whatnot, put everything on iTunes and call it day. To be honest I'm an old fart who was definitely bummed that the Fan Network archives went away, as I loved the convenience of pulling up a show online whenever I wanted/"needed" (i.e. if I was working on a marching band show design and wanted to see a specific show to see how they did something). But I'm mostly over that now, and I agree that if the two companies figured out a way to make this right they should do it in a heartbeat. Why do you think they haven't: is Tresona asking more than DCI thinks they can make; is DCI unwilling to share their small sliver of the pie; is there just realistically not really that big of a market that it's worth the legal paperwork and law team or royalty fees for sync rights/media rights? I honestly don't know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 This article on DCI.org from 2008 suggests that they were paying. http://www.dci.org/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=33500&ATCLID=209940319&SPID=166025&SPSID=965782 I guess what I meant was: * there is the Master Use License that cover recording the song; Synchronization License for the DVDs/Blu-rays; New Media Performance License for the performances online. Obviously these various licenses (as well as others mentioned) have been known by DCI/caused issues in the past (in 2008 when this article was published there were sync license issues DCI Champion Phantom Regiment's show and portions had to be cut because of the issues). * rights holders have possible requested royalty fees for sale of individual copyrighted songs IN ADDITION TO all required licenses. For example, lets look at Cadets 1995 show, "An American Quintet." The music featured an all John Williams show, an artist notoriously difficult to obtain rights to use in the marching world. It's possible DCI attained all necessary licenses listed above, but a recent interpretation in copyright law (as detailed in the BOA presentation at MidWest linked/discussed previously in this thread) as compelled rights holders to maybe believe that they are owned royalty fees based on the SALES of internet subscriptions/stream views/media sold. Maybe rights holders believe a license is not enough, and royalty payments for each individual sale are now due; a live performance is covered under the broad license to arrange & performance rights, and maybe the live streaming is also covered in those broad "basic" rights. Sales of media and archival subscription might fall under a different category where rights holders believe they are owed additional fees. Does that make sense? Again, I'm merely spit balling and I could be WAY off. I do know a bit about the music industry, and their never-ending pursuit to get every last penny possible out of customers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 May I approach the bench? I apologize, but my attention span seems to be getting shorter as I get older. So maybe this information has already been provided in an earlier post. Would you indulge me for asking: when thinking back to the '70s and then up to the present, has the law changed (concerning copyrights and obtaining rights to use music)? Or, somewhere along the line did someone notice that DCI was selling recordings of music without proper authorization...and start demanding enforcement? Can someone explain what changed? Thanks What changed, I suspect, is how the law is interpreted. I just stumbled on this example from 2004, as described in a DCI.org article about Jeni Paulson and CopyCat Music Licensing, consultant to DCI and many of their corps. (link http://www.dci.org/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=33500&ATCLID=209945804&SPID=166025&SPSID=965782) "According to Jeni, 'The difference between a CD (mechanical) and a video (synchronization) license is that once a song is recorded on CD for the first time, anyone can get a mechanical license under US copyright law to record their own arrangement of the piece on CD. The royalty rate is governed by law and is established by Washington.'" Note that she mentions "their own arrangement" specifically. That is in direct contrast with a legal opinion presented at the 2014 Midwest Clinic by Eric Martin (not just any lawyer, but also an officer of Music for All/Bands of America). Martin contends that the new arrangement cannot be duplicated or recorded in any form by the user (and thus, certainly not by DCI either) without further permission from the composer / original copyright owner. This is one such change. There may be another one, along similar lines, regarding on-demand video streams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Holland Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 I concur with the interpretation of the law changed, accordingly with the amount of online places to post media. But I also think that DCI saw what it would cost to offer up a video buffet and its likely just some ridiculously large amount of money for the return on investment. Because you have to think about why Golden Corral gets away with offering cheap kangaroo for their all-you-can-eat "steak" and making money on it. I don't see that working the same way for videos of a niche market. I don't know what it would cost to put up media for 24/7 downloadable access, but if its more than a few hundred, I see the cost of fan network going through the roof. Likely some of the composers who are still alive cost way more for 24/7 availability. But if it was iTunes, where all the cost is placed back onto the consumer, or like on-demand movie rentals (where for $4.99 you get 48-hours of access to it) this could be the way to go. Everyone wins... sort of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 I guess what I meant was: * there is the Master Use License that cover recording the song; Synchronization License for the DVDs/Blu-rays; New Media Performance License for the performances online. Obviously these various licenses (as well as others mentioned) have been known by DCI/caused issues in the past (in 2008 when this article was published there were sync license issues DCI Champion Phantom Regiment's show and portions had to be cut because of the issues). * rights holders have possible requested royalty fees for sale of individual copyrighted songs IN ADDITION TO all required licenses. For example, lets look at Cadets 1995 show, "An American Quintet." The music featured an all John Williams show, an artist notoriously difficult to obtain rights to use in the marching world. It's possible DCI attained all necessary licenses listed above, but a recent interpretation in copyright law (as detailed in the BOA presentation at MidWest linked/discussed previously in this thread) as compelled rights holders to maybe believe that they are owned royalty fees based on the SALES of internet subscriptions/stream views/media sold. Maybe rights holders believe a license is not enough, and royalty payments for each individual sale are now due; a live performance is covered under the broad license to arrange & performance rights, and maybe the live streaming is also covered in those broad "basic" rights. Another possibility - if there was an additional "ask for permission" step in the process that DCI was unaware of until 18 months ago, then technically, permission was never granted. The discussion starts at cease and desist. Confiscatory royalty rates could then be a "compromise", in that context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 How does this explain the course of events? I can see one thing right away. That paper was presented December 18, 2014, at 4:00 PM. DCI took a bunch of Fan Network streams offline on December 19, 2014. I can guess that the takedown requests came some time in that 24 hour period. Excellent post with some good detective work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 So they were aware of the marching band activity. So they were also aware of the DCI activity. Like I said, hard to believe the publishers were unaware that marching music ensembles were playing their music 30 years ago. They were, in fact, already publishing and selling their own stock arrangements to the marching music market. You ignored my full posting. The publishing companies back then were 'aware' of marching bands and drum corps, they were also 'aware' that they were performing halftime shows and at minor local contests. They published stock charts for the ensembles to play and placed them in the category that most others place them, "It's just marching band". What they were not 'aware' of, until that moment of discovery, was how big of a national (business) DCI was becoming, nor how many charts were being arranged by corps without gaining permission, nor how much money was changing hands to facilitate the ever growing realm of (DCI the business). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Jay Bocook was one of the big names writing the published charts being sold to the High Schools while on staff at Hal Leonard. I can only surmise that Hal Leonard was therefore aware of the existence of drum corps. Hal Leonard was aware of the existence of drum corps and marching bands; and they produced stock charts, ie via Bocock, for those idioms. Again, what they were 'not' aware of until the late 70's or early 80's was how big of a business DCI was becoming, nor how many corps were doing custom arrangements without gaining permission, nor how much money was being exchanged in the growing national (business) of DCI, Once they became aware of the business end of DCI, and how much money was being exchanged from one hand to another, they started to crack down on copyright infringements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtown Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1112-mourning-prince-online-in-the-absence-of-media/ Thought this was interesting, Prince was so tight with copy write /media control that when he died, fans couldn’t find his material to share online 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.