Tresóna loses big copyright case

[Jurassic Lancer]

3 minutes ago, combia1 said:

This is good news, and has the potential to be HUGE in the marching arts. Permission to Arrange SHOULD be a lot easier and a lot cheaper as a result.

Just in time for the 2020 season ... oh, wait.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Jurassic Lancer

[Rich Cline]

Just now, Jurassic Lancer said:

Just in time for 2020 ... oh, wait.

I think all the corps have their music for the 2020 season, but I have also been following the posts in other forums from all of the bands and they have been subjected to the same treatment that the drum corps activity has endured.

[skevinp]

1 hour ago, Rich Cline said:

Standing Definition:

Standing (law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Jump to navigationJump to search

Legal concept concerning a party's connection to or harm from a law or action being challenged

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

1. The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.

In other words, in this case Tresona was not harmed and therefore lacked standing.

Standing related to the other 3 claims based on their not having the necessary rights to begin with.  They did have standing on the matter decided or it wouldn’t have been decided on the merits.  

[skevinp]

It will be important whether DCI is considered educational and non-commercial.  Previously the conventional wisdom has said no. This case appears to potentially allow a much more expansive definition, however. 

[skevinp]

Because fair use is something that is based on a number of subjective factors rather than a simple bright line, I don’t think this case by itself provides reliably safe cover for drum corps.  

However, because it reduces the chances of enforcement in the future, it may force Tresona to make changes that will benefit DCI.  They may decide such claims are not worth pursuing and adopt a different policy.  Perhaps more likely, the price may go down, maybe a lot.

Edited March 25, 2020 by skevinp

[garfield]

Careful what you wish for!  This sounds like a near-restriction on corps to ONLY arrange using "small portions", along with other "small portions" to create their show.  There's been considerable pushback in recent years about "chop and bop" scores and how unattractive they are to most fans.

"The panel concluded
that the music director’s use of a small portion of the song,
along with portions of other songs, to create sheet music for
a new and different high school choir showpiece
performance was a fair use."

[garfield]

43 minutes ago, skevinp said:

It will be important whether DCI is considered educational and non-commercial.  Previously the conventional wisdom has said no. This case appears to potentially allow a much more expansive definition, however. 

In their simple opinion, it seems the non-profit nature of the drum corps plus the "World Class" instruction from many of the same people writing and teaching at their high schools would be an enforceable educational product.

[N.E. Brigand]

44 minutes ago, skevinp said:

It will be important whether DCI is considered educational and non-commercial.  Previously the conventional wisdom has said no. This case appears to potentially allow a much more expansive definition, however. 

It might behoove corps to edit their documentation to make the educational component clear.

[garfield]

2 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

It might behoove corps to edit their documentation to make the educational component clear.

Excellent suggestion.

[Jeff Ream]

5 hours ago, skevinp said:

It will be important whether DCI is considered educational and non-commercial.  Previously the conventional wisdom has said no. This case appears to potentially allow a much more expansive definition, however. 

i guarantee Tresona will appeal