Is "The Wonder Years" that much of a risk? (1 Viewer)

[smithb]

Originally Posted by Cees Alons ">[/url]


Which is not the way we normally deal with accusations, is it?

 

[smithb]

Originally Posted by MatthewA

Or they could just keep the price the same, or even (Heaven forbid anyone ever actually does this) cut prices in order to increase potential sales volume to make up for the lost margins.


I don't totally relieve them of responsibility, but because they're the ones getting charged unreasonable fees for overpriced junk music, and they're the ones who get hurt financially if fans boycott a release with music replacements. However, I do blame the studios when they systematically cut things without bothering to ask what it would cost (as it seems Paramount does with almost every show they own).

A music publisher has nothing to lose by lowering the price to something reasonable. If he tries to gouge the studio and they refuse to participate in the attempted shakedown, the publisher gets nothing, the studio cuts the song, and nobody wins. If the publisher agrees to a more reasonable fee ($20,000 is a rip-off for a whole song, never mind a few bars of a song), and the studio agrees, the publisher gets paid, the studio can keep the song, and everybody wins.

That would require the actors to act in a rational manner.

Why should they charge the same? I'm sure you have heard of inflation. Don't you think the studios have figured that into their profits and pricing. Where is your evidence of the studio's getting charged unreasonable fees? You keep throwing this around without clear evidence gouging, shakedown). And remember unreasonable is based on what the studio stand to gain based on what the music holder is providing. So unless you know what the studio's have made and will make in profit you can't determine unreasonable.

You also like to call the music junk. If the music was junk it wouldn't be important to the show and could be replaceable. Since it is important and critical to the fans then it must not be junk.

Studio's take a calculated risk on determing what to pursue and what not to pursue based on what they can make in profits with a primary goal to maximize profits. Music holders do the same thing. If in some cases it doesn't work out for either one to produce something then yes they both lose some profits in that case alone, but not necessarily as a whole.

Whether a release goes out is a business decision between the parties involved. In my opinion, you have not shown evidence to point the finger at one party over the other even though you seem to feel it is one sided, since neither party provides all the facts. As such, it is nothing more then business as usual with the little guy (fans) losing out and nothing more.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by smithb




Why should they charge the same? I'm sure you have heard of inflation. Don't you think the studios have figured that into their profits and pricing. Where is your evidence of the studio's getting charged unreasonable fees? You keep throwing this around without clear evidence gouging, shakedown). And remember unreasonable is based on what the studio stand to gain based on what the music holder is providing. So unless you know what the studio's have made and will make in profit you can't determine unreasonable.

You also like to call the music junk. If the music was junk it wouldn't be important to the show and could be replaceable. Since it is important and critical to the fans then it must not be junk.

Studio's take a calculated risk on determing what to pursue and what not to pursue based on what they can make in profits with a primary goal to maximize profits. Music holders do the same thing. If in some cases it doesn't work out for either one to produce something then yes they both lose some profits in that case alone, but not necessarily as a whole.

Whether a release goes out is a business decision between the parties involved. In my opinion, you have not shown evidence to point the finger at one party over the other even though you seem to feel it is one sided, since neither party provides all the facts. As such, it is nothing more then business as usual with the little guy (fans) losing out and nothing more.

Not all the music is junk. Almost everything on Top 40 radio in the past 20+ years, however, qualifies. Badly written, sung (or in the case of rap, not sung at all), and arranged. But just because I don't like it doesn't mean it isn't part of the original work which uses it. But in some cases, I don't like the original work either. But for those who do, it's frustrating, and they're the reason the studio even wants these shows out. Therefore, they should receive some consideration. Is there anyone who would buy a music-replaced version of a show but not a music-intact version if they cost the same?

And since you mentioned whether or not the studios were at fault, yes they are. They are definitely at fault for not licensing these songs for all media in perpetuity. But nobody believed it was worth the expense because these shows would never be seen anywhere but on TV, so now they're stuck going through the same business again.

It costs NOTHING to a publisher to license a song out, no matter the price. Everything is 100% profit.

And no, I don't have all the evidence because studios believe vague quotes from representatives are good enough for the sniveling masses.
And now that Ally McBeal is coming from Fox with every note of original music intact, its sales will definitely have some bearing on how The Wonder Years gets treated.

 

[DaveHof]

For those who have asked for evidence of music licensing rights being high, this quote came from the website royaltyfreemusic.com:

Renegotiating music rights can be a costly and time consuming process. In order to renegotiate music rights, you must contact the copyright holders for each and every song featured in the series. After the copyright holders are notified about the intended usage of the music, they will issue a contract in exchange for an agreed upon licensing fee. These licensing fees can be steep: it could cost upwards of $10,000 to $40,000 per track to use original music from a TV series in a DVD release. Suppose, in addition to the title theme , the average TV series includes four songs per episode. Multiply that by an average of twenty shows per season for an average of four seasons and you get 320 songs. At $10,000 per track, music licensing fees for a four season TV series could amount to a whopping $3,200,000.

Brad- you asked about the difference between the music rights holders and the studios, and why there's only complaints when the music people want to be paid multiple times for the same work. The studio deserves the lion's share of any DVD profits, because it was the studio/ production company that paid for the show in the first place. They bought the pilot, cast the series, built the sets, paid the salaries of the actors, writers, directors, etc. and paid for the marketing and promotion campaign when it first aired. They do this for dozens of shows every year, and only a few ever turn a profit. So when that happens, they should reap the benefits.

Contrast this with the music rights holder- they made no investment in the series. They don't lose any money if the show is canceled after three episodes. Instead, they were paid an agreed-upon fee in advance for the use of a piece of music. When they take the money, their song has now become a part of that show. Changing their mind ten years later and saying, no, you can't have it anymore unless you pay me again, is perfectly legal it seems, but doesn't make the situation any less ludicrous.

What if Eve Plumb went to Paramount and said she wasn't happy with whatever compensation she received (if indeed she received any) from releasing The Brady Bunch on DVD, and she wanted another $50,000 for each episode? Would Paramount recut the episodes and remove her? Would they dig up Geri Reischl to play Jan and dub her into the series, the way she appeared in the Brady Bunch Variety Show? Actually, with Paramount they just might. But how is this scenario any sillier than changing Jennifer's doorbell on WKRP, which played ONE LINE of "Fly Me to the Moon", to avoid paying the estate of that song's composer?

 

[Garysb]

Originally Posted by DaveHof

What if Eve Plumb went to Paramount and said she wasn't happy with whatever compensation she received (if indeed she received any) from releasing The Brady Bunch on DVD, and she wanted another $50,000 for each episode? Would Paramount recut the episodes and remove her? Would they dig up Geri Reischl to play Jan and dub her into the series, the way she appeared in the Brady Bunch Variety Show? Actually, with Paramount they just might. But how is this scenario any sillier than changing Jennifer's doorbell on WKRP, which played ONE LINE of "Fly Me to the Moon", to avoid paying the estate of that song's composer?

I think it all depends on how the contracts were originally negotiated. I believe actors in films made prior to 1960 never got money when their films were shown on TV. Payments were won by the actor's union for films made after 1960. Writers get paid matter how many times a film or TV show is shown. Actors are limited to a set number. As has been said the music rights negotiated for TV shows did not include home video rights. Even when it was known that shows would be sold on home video these rights were not always obtained.
The last season of Charmed replaced the theme music. Dawson's Creek replaced the theme music for most of the seasons. It probably is all a matter of budget. On Charmed they cut the budget in last season in order to produce another season. Actors were dropped and I am sure the music budget was also cut so they didn't clear the music for home video use. I don't think greed or cheapness are the only reasons music is replaced. I think cost verses sales is a big reason for this. I guess for some reason they can't base the fee for music
on the number of units sold. The rights holder would get more the more units sold.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by Garysb



I think it all depends on how the contracts were originally negotiated. I believe actors in films made prior to 1960 never got money when their films were shown on TV. Payments were won by the actor's union for films made after 1960. Writers get paid matter how many times a film or TV show is shown. Actors are limited to a set number. As has been said the music rights negotiated for TV shows did not include home video rights. Even when it was known that shows would be sold on home video these rights were not always obtained.
The last season of Charmed replaced the theme music. Dawson's Creek replaced the theme music for most of the seasons. It probably is all a matter of budget. On Charmed they cut the budget in last season in order to produce another season. Actors were dropped and I am sure the music budget was also cut so they didn't clear the music for home video use. I don't think greed or cheapness are the only reasons music is replaced. I think cost verses sales is a big reason for this. I guess for some reason they can't base the fee for music
on the number of units sold. The rights holder would get more the more units sold.

Cutting costs for the making of new episodes is one thing. I'm talking about pre-existing material.

Another example of publisher greed: Married with Children. How many people were introduced to the music of Frank Sinatra by his recording of "Love and Marriage" being the theme? None will be now if they've only seen seasons 3-11 on DVD, and it's not Ol' Blue Eyes' estate or Sony to blame: it's the publisher of the written song. They wanted an unreasonable fee (hence "The Most Outrageous Episodes" before season sets) that kept going up with each season until Sony said "take a hike." Sony even tried to put a positive spin by saying "Includes New Theme Song!" which came off as "Yippee! We got rid of that crummy old timeless standard for a wonderful new generic royalty-free unsong!"

 

[vnisanian2001]

and it's not Ol' Blue Eyes' estate or Sony to blame: it's the publisher of the written song.

And yet someone on these boards had the nerve to claim that ever since Frank Sinatra's death, his estate has become "MUCH more unwilling to allow his music to be used".

Frank Sinatra didn't throw a fit when the song was first used on MWC, and I doubt he would throw one today if he was still alive.

 

[Bryan^H]

Originally Posted by David Rain

And do NOT get me started on this idea that it's ok for songs and/or scenes to be dropped or edited just "so the show can get released." WKRP, anyone ? Yeah, didn't think so.

I was fine with the WKRP 1st season, and enjoyed it very much. Sorry you didn't.

 

[Bryan^H]

Originally Posted by Scott_F_S

You don't know how music clearances work, do you?

I don't care. I'm ok with music substitution. Also, if you're such an expert on music clearances, explain to me how the first four seasons of Saturday Night Live used all the original music.
Is there a clause for live music on a tv show?


Edited by Bryan^H - 8/9/2009 at 07:48 pm GMT

 

[Bryan^H]

Double post.

 

[Bryan^H]

Don't get me wrong, I prefer all original content. But if it means a releases or none at all....ever, than music substitution is the only choice.

 

[Gary OS]

Originally Posted by Bryan^H

I don't care. I'm ok with music substitution.

Wow! You're literally the first person I've ever heard or read that has said that when it comes to this show. I cannot comprehend The Wonder Years without the original music. No way, no how!


Gary "if we were only talking one or two songs, out of the hundreds used, then fine - but that's as far as I'd go" O.

 

[Bryan^H]

Originally Posted by Gary OS





Wow! You're literally the first person I've ever heard or read that has said that when it comes to this show. I cannot comprehend The Wonder Years without the original music. No way, no how!


Gary "if we were only talking one or two songs, out of the hundreds used, then fine - but that's as far as I'd go" O.

I don't mean every song. I'm sure most of them are probably doable. For those that are too expensive, get rid of em'.

 

[Regulus]

Call me a Devil's Advocate, but IMO this Nation's Copywright Laws need to be OVERHAULED. One thing I would push for. ANY Movie, TV Show or Music over 20 years old would be PUBLIC DOMAIN.

What do you think?

 

[DaveHof]

Yes the copyright laws do need to be overhauled. But then, the tax laws have needed to be overhauled for decades. It's unfathomable that we still have such a Draconian system of multiple forms and loopholes and unfair percentages paid based on one's income, rather than something basic and fair and easy for anyone of average intelligence to understand. But that being the case I wouldn't hold my breath for any major changes to copyright. So a solution will have to be found within the current system.

I disagree with making everything public domain in 20 years - the companies that invested the money in creating a film or television series should have the right to profit from it as long as people are interested in buying it. But the music rights holders who were paid already for the use of their work in a television series are overstepping their bounds. I wouldn't even object to them being paid something for the re-use of their work on DVD, but the fact that are apparently able to name their own price is ridiculous. Compensation should be at the discretion of the copyright holder of the television series, of which the songs are just one component.

 

[David Levine]

With SNL, a big part of it is Vivendi owns Universal Music Group AND 20% of NBC Universal. So they were essentially dealing with themselves for an awful lot of the music.

They also have the pull to say to non-Universal acts "We really want to use this music, it would be a shame if we couldn't ever invite you back to SNL after this, or use any of your music on any future NBC programs..."

Originally Posted by Bryan^H




I don't care. I'm ok with music substitution. Also, if you're such an expert on music clearances, explain to me how the first four seasons of Saturday Night Live used all the original music.
Is there a clause for live music on a tv show?


Edited by Bryan^H - 8/9/2009 at 07:48 pm GMT