2018 DVD/BluRays DCI Champ Finals??

[N.E. Brigand]

2 hours ago, cage said:

I know many of you don't agree with any of this, but private property rights are the backbone to our economic system in this country.  It is really no different than using someone's patent without permission.

Not sure that anyone here disagrees with that. In general the problem most people have is that laws written in the late 1700s have only been fitfully updated to stay abreast of technological developments, and that many of the changes which been made have been done with the purpose or effect of reducing the public domain. The first U.S. copyright laws provided for a term of 14 years from publication with the option of extending another 14 years. After that maximum 28-year period, works fell into the public domain. Now it's up to 105 years. Subsequent changes have very little to do with increases in life expectancy, the vast bulk of which have to do with reduced child mortality. If you were 20 years old in 1790, you were likely to reach age 60; if you're 20 years old in 2018, you're likely to reach age 80.

[cage]

1 hour ago, jeffmolnar said:

No one's arguing against private property rights, I don't know why you keep coming at it from that angle (although our patent laws are equally ridiculous and only serve to harm the market and stifle innovation, but that's another discussion altogether).

The issue is these groups have already secured the rights to play this music during their competition season, but videos of that season can't be made available. That's ridiculous. Those things shouldn't be separated. If they're licensed to play a track at their competition, videos of that competition should be able to be seen. There shouldn't be this multi-step process of securing rights for each individual thing.

We are not going to agree and that is fine.  I just see a songwriter's work as private property. Have a good day.

[jeffmolnar]

26 minutes ago, cage said:

We are not going to agree and that is fine.  I just see a songwriter's work as private property. Have a good day.

So do I. Please explain in great detail why you “don’t agree” with the idea that a corps should only have to license the work once to cover all aspects of the season (competition, audio, video). How does that hurt the songwriter?

[N.E. Brigand]

5 minutes ago, jeffmolnar said:

So do I. Please explain in great detail why you “don’t agree” with the idea that a corps should only have to license the work once to cover all aspects of the season (competition, audio, video). How does that hurt the songwriter?

I can see why adding a songwriter's work to video without her permission (while the work is still under copyright) could lead to problems. The composer would understandably be worried that her creation might be tied to something that she vehemently opposes.

That said, a simpler mechanism for handling all this should be a desideratum for all parties.

Edited December 2, 2018 by N.E. Brigand

[jeffmolnar]

4 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I can see why adding a songwriter's work to video without her permission (while the work is still under copyright) could lead to problems. The composer would understandably be worried that her creation might be tied to something that she vehemently opposes.

That said, a simpler mechanism for handling all this should be a desideratum for all parties.

Then the corps wouldn’t get the rights in the first place.

The point is for this permission to be granted prior to the season starting. Your artist in question is licensing her music to be used in an 11 minute brass and drums production on a football field. It’s not even close to the original work. No one would be content with BD 2019 if they were looking for a recording of “Natural Woman.”

I don’t understand how corps can get the rights to perform arrangements of these pieces, but then nobody can watch them on video. That should all be the same license for a nonprofit youth activity that marches on a football field.

[N.E. Brigand]

2 hours ago, jeffmolnar said:

Then the corps wouldn’t get the rights in the first place.

The point is for this permission to be granted prior to the season starting. Your artist in question is licensing her music to be used in an 11 minute brass and drums production on a football field. It’s not even close to the original work. No one would be content with BD 2019 if they were looking for a recording of “Natural Woman.”

I don’t understand how corps can get the rights to perform arrangements of these pieces, but then nobody can watch them on video. That should all be the same license for a nonprofit youth activity that marches on a football field.

It's because the visual element has the potential to change the meaning the music has for the audience. I've never seen A Clockwork Orange, but I remember my mother telling me she could never hear "Singing in the Rain" as a lighthearted song again because in that film, it's used to accompany a rape scene. In that case, Kubrick surely got the rights, but imagine a drum corps using some piece of music intended by its composer to be romantic for, say, a moment of shock and horror--let's say, a woman's throat being slit.

Now, how do you solve that sort of problem before the season starts? Does every composer get a veto over every element of a corps' visual program, as it is being developed?

[Jeff Ream]

18 hours ago, jeffmolnar said:

Complaining generates angry masses on social media and makes the entities in question look bad. Eventually that could lead to something. Keyword could. You know what definitely won't though? Playing nice with them.

And I understand that it applies to everything. That's insane. No rational human could possibly support this system. These are youth organizations, they're not depriving publishers of any money by performing a licensed track in the Macy's parade. This crap needs to stop, and I don't see how that can ever happen without a whole lot of people being made aware of it. There isn't enough manpower in the marching arts alone.

allow me to be bluntly honest....for many years the activity as a whole played fast and loose if not outright ignoring the laws. Then later on they did follow the laws they were they interpreted them, and then the super companies cracked down on enforcing the laws as the court allowed them to. High schools deal with it, you name it...and all added up, the money isn't there to wage war and win, and tresona doesnt care about a social media war you know why.....because they hold all the card. Want the music? Pay. if not, find someone to write it for you

[jeffmolnar]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

allow me to be bluntly honest....for many years the activity as a whole played fast and loose if not outright ignoring the laws. Then later on they did follow the laws they were they interpreted them, and then the super companies cracked down on enforcing the laws as the court allowed them to. High schools deal with it, you name it...and all added up, the money isn't there to wage war and win, and tresona doesnt care about a social media war you know why.....because they hold all the card. Want the music? Pay. if not, find someone to write it for you

Music publishers absolutely care about negative social media outry (which results in negative press). Tresona might not care, but their clients definitely do because it affects their bottom line. It's 2018.

Is it really just about money though? Like, what is the actual reason that 40 seconds of BD's 2017 closer is just lost now? If it was money, what was the sum, and who was demanding it? Does Hans Zimmer know or care? Was it the movie studio, or Tresona, or another party? That's the type of information I'd like to see published.

At the end of the day, the video archives are how these shows will exist in the future. Isn't it sad how certain performances from the 60's and 70's (and earlier) are just lost forever? How great would it be if the only video record of SCV '72 didn't include the bottle dance, because the rights weren't secured? It's easy to hand-waive this stuff away with modern recordings, but it's going to be really sad decades from now when full minutes of these shows are just lost to time.

[N.E. Brigand]

2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

allow me to be bluntly honest....for many years the activity as a whole played fast and loose if not outright ignoring the laws. Then later on they did follow the laws they were they interpreted them, and then the super companies cracked down on enforcing the laws as the court allowed them to. High schools deal with it, you name it...and all added up, the money isn't there to wage war and win, and tresona doesnt care about a social media war you know why.....because they hold all the card. Want the music? Pay. if not, find someone to write it for you

Some laws are bad and deserve to be ignored.

But yes, doing so comes with peril.

History will judge Tresona badly. That's not much help right now, to be sure.

[Jeff Ream]

3 hours ago, jeffmolnar said:

Music publishers absolutely care about negative social media outry (which results in negative press). Tresona might not care, but their clients definitely do because it affects their bottom line. It's 2018.

Is it really just about money though? Like, what is the actual reason that 40 seconds of BD's 2017 closer is just lost now? If it was money, what was the sum, and who was demanding it? Does Hans Zimmer know or care? Was it the movie studio, or Tresona, or another party? That's the type of information I'd like to see published.

At the end of the day, the video archives are how these shows will exist in the future. Isn't it sad how certain performances from the 60's and 70's (and earlier) are just lost forever? How great would it be if the only video record of SCV '72 didn't include the bottle dance, because the rights weren't secured? It's easy to hand-waive this stuff away with modern recordings, but it's going to be really sad decades from now when full minutes of these shows are just lost to time.

if Tresona cared about negative publicity, there'd have been changes since 2015. We don't produce enough copies to be a financial threat, we aren't a Hollywood studio production. Hell ESPN of all places drastically cut back on showing college bands during games...why? Licensing.Same for the other networks. 

 

And it's not always money. It can often be the artist. if they don;t like how their work is being used...especially in a visual medium...so sad too bad. they'll say no. Hell in 2008 before all of this blew up. DCi released the first batch, then all other batches had to have edits of Phantoms show because the composer didnt like how it was used. in 92 Cavies were sued by Stamp himself.

 

we are a niche activity, without enough voices to do enough damage, and in these political times, not nearly enough money to lobby for changes in Congress