Is "The Wonder Years" that much of a risk?

Ok, One thing I am almost certain of: if The Wonder Years were released on dvd it would sell Tremendously well. A pure money making machine.
Music rights....blah blah blah. If Miami Vice(5 seasons) can have all original music included on the dvd sets, why on earth couldn't The Wonder Years do the same?

Why hasn't this series at least be given a season 1 release on dvd? Being such a popular show in the 80's it seems almost foolish to not experiment with a dvd release.
I'm in the camp of all original content included, but if the studio has to remove a couple of pesky songs that are blocking this from gracing store shelve in all it's season 1 dvd glory, then so be it.
This show is screaming for a release, I don't even care if it has special features, just all the episodes, and the majority(if not all) of the music.
What's the hold up?

Well... Maybe you're in luck.

Ally McBeal is coming from Fox, in a complete series set, supposedly with all original music intact, and at a reasonable price.

Ally was a music heavy show. If Fox can pull that one off, there may be hope for anything. And they also own Wonder Years, so maybe...

The thing with TWY that's even better (well, from the studio's perspective) is that season 1 is only six episodes, so it wouldn't require an entire 22-episode season's worth of negotiations and money. Perfect for a 'test'--if it sells well enough to justify the music rights, go for uncut season 2 and beyond...if not, then look into substitutions if absolutely necessary.
 
ETA: But if Fox tries the Ally McBeal model, I'd totally pick up a series set.

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

Well, they're a pain in the ass for older shows. Rights have to be negotiated through each individual rights holder, correct? And the holder can charge as much or as little as they want, or not give permission for the music to be used on a home video release at all, correct?

What more is there to know besides that? I'm curious.

I must say that I do get tired of the naive idea that somehow so-and-so show MUST be releaseable because so-and-so other show got released. What does one have to do with another ? Every show is different. Even every season of a show is different. You're talking about different songs, different music rights holders, different studios releasing a product, different budgets for each potential project, different levels of demand for certain shows, etc.

I'm amazed that the same TV-on-DVD questions keep coming up yet no one seems to pay attention to logical answers. Why is that ?

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.

The reason music rights posts keep popping up over and over is not because we don't understand the issues involved, but because we're tired of the greed and arrogance that results in shows that are not released, and others that are released in an inferior package. And please forgive my use of "we," as I would not presume to speak for anyone else. Just my opinion.

Regardless of the specific legal issues, it just seems wrong for this to happen over and over. These problems almost never happen when a motion picture is released on DVD, and for those of us who are as passionate about television as movie lovers are about film, it becomes frustrating for our medium to be treated so shabbily.

It’s wrong, what’s happening to so many TV titles on DVD. It’s just plain, flat-out wrong. And it shouldn’t be a money or rights issue, It should be a common sense issue, which doesn’t often have any bearing on our legal system. But I would love to see someone challenge the current copyright law with this scenario:

When a song is written and recorded, it becomes a work of art and deserves protection from illegal copying, as well as any money it earns from record sales/downloads to the writer and performer. When a television show requests and pays for the right to use part or all of that song in one episode, that should be it. In this context, that song is no longer a work of art, but a subservient component in a separate work of art. The songwriter and recording artist should be paid once again for allowing its use, but they had no role in any other aspect of the production of this episode, so why are they entitled to continue to profit over and over again? When has anyone ever said, “I can’t wait to get the first season of Beverly Hills 90210 on DVD, because I hear they use part of  a Debbie Gibson song in one episode.” The song is not what generates sales - the series and its episodes generate sales - the song is just along for the ride. Would we miss it if it were gone? Certainly. Should this give the songwriter/performer/whomever the right to hold up a studio for ransom 10/20 years after they were already paid for allowing its inclusion in the series? Not in my opinion. I'd be delighted to see the licensing laws change so that one payment covers all present and future uses of music in a television episode. And yes, that should include homevideo formats that did not exist at the time of the original contract. None of us can predict the future.

Now, if you’d all like to tell me how naïve and stupid I am, please feel free to do so.

Here is my take:

First off for some shows the music is an integral part of its success. Otherwise, music replacements would not be such a big deal to those desiring the show on DVD. So we can't minimize its importance.

Secondly, the whole home distribution of TV shows to the home market is a new windfall of profit for the studios that was not part of the original negotiations with the music rights holders. So why should the studios get all the new money generated and not others with legal claims based on copyrights? When the original negotiations took place I'll bet potential syndication profits were included in the agreement for gaining the music rights, but home distribution was probably not thought to be a viable money maker at the time. As a result, this left a whole in the contract giving each side a point of contention.

Now, I will admit it has probably gone too far in some cases with music rights holders holding out for too much and studios being too cheap or liberal in some cases about replacements. But I don't think it is correct to just give studios the green light to profit from the music contributions beyond what they originally negotiated for. Hopefully, both sides will eventually come to some kind of agreement that benefits all. But as we have seen in the past, some just won't budge out of some sort of principle that leaves us all wanting something that will never be available.

It's not really that much different when the music industry is the most corrupt business in this country outside of organized crime. They're all a bunch of greedy felons. Consider how many artists have been screwed by publishers and record companies going back to the days of ragtime. This is not hearsay, this is documented fact. And let's not even start on payola.

No song anywhere is worth $20,000. Not by Beethoven, not by the Beatles, not by anyone. There really needs to be a per-song price cap of no more than $1,000 for any media, and a clearance for one media must mean a clearance for all media past present and future. That and congressional investigations to punish them for their decades of proven criminal behavior.

Of course, 90210 is a Paramount show and they don't even ask how much it would cost to re-clear music for DVD. They hear a musical note, they cut it.

For music replacements, I don't think anyone would like the idea of the theme song being removed, which I would guess, be the first thing to go. I think of this show whenever I hear the song on the radio.

Personally, I would like to see it at least on the 1st episode, and would be okay with it, if removed from episodes after that, since I tend to skip the theme when watching a show on DVD.

No one is trying to rip off the artists responsible for the music. They were paid once when the song became a hit, they were paid again when the studio licensed the use of the song in the TV series. Now with DVD they're asking to be paid a third time for the same usage of the same song. And when the studio balks at paying a ridiculous figure for a few bars of a 20-30 year old song, they substitute a piece of generic crap, and as a result the fans of the show are unhappy and the music rights holders get nothing. Surely the parties involved could table their greed and come up with a better solution than that.

What is the difference between the music rights holders and the studios? The studios got paid when the show originally was aired, again through syndication, and now they want to get paid again for selling the DVD. If the studio can get paid everytime their portion of the artistic endeavor is released then why not the music rights holders? Both sides are just trying to maximize their profits and both are equally greedy, so I don't understand the majority of the venom going at the music rights holder when it should be equally dispersed to the studio's, in my opinion.

As stated before, each situation is probably unique. It is quite possible that some music rights holders may feel they got the shaft when they initially negotiated with the studios from the beginning not knowing how much profits the studios would get or how integral their music would be, and this is their chance to recoup. Maybe it is just the studios being cheap. How do we know the fees are ridiculous?

I'm not in the in know so I can't say for sure but I think many are just hypothesizing anyways. I just think the studios should be held just as accountable for this fiasco. So far I think we have only heard from the studio's their spin, which is rights were too costly. Maybe we need someone to shed some light on the subject from the other side because if the music industry is seen as crooked, I don't think the movie industry is any different.

Which is exactly the reason why I don't believe that Fox tried so hard to get the rights to Irving Berlin's "White Christmas" (Which was heard in a Christmas episode from the first season of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show") but couldn't.

That's a false analogy (which are very popular with Defenders of Corner-Cutting on this board), and one of the worst I have heard yet in the ongoing attempt to rationalize and defend this garbage. We are not talking about completely unrelated items. If a person does not own a mansion, yacht, or luxury car, that is not an alteration of a person like changing the music is an alteration of an artwork. And if they charge more than the market will bear, they will get hurt because even people who can afford luxury items will stop buying them.

But there have been standardized musical synchronization fees in other media. We need it for home video.


Exactly. Why should the studios or fans of the show be gouged to stroke the ego and feed the greed of some Tin Pan Alley hack who can't even rhyme moon with June? And what about the rights of the studios to keep their artwork unmolested?

Until evidence is provided to show otherwise I think it is just the fans that are being gouged to stroke the ego of the greedy. Which is how it typially goes. You need to provide much more information that the studios won't provide anyway to show that they are actually being gouged and not just being overly cheap and greedy.

And if the studio's want complete control of their product then they shouldn't license other's work to incorporate. Otherwise they have no rights beyond what the original license stated. If it ends up molested it is a decision made by the studio to do so because they no longer want to honor or redo the license.

I have yet to see concrete evidence to say that the fees required to retain the music rights are ridiculous in relation to what profits the studios have gained and continue to gain through the continued release of the product. Until we do how can anyone point fingers one way or another?

My stance is that they are both suspect (studio and music industry) regarding these issues because I've seen nothing to let either one off the hook. If anyone has evidence to show that one side or the other is actually not being cheap or greedy then they need to provide it.

"But there have been standardized musical synchronization fees in other media. We need it for home video." Could you provide examples of this? I would like to know more to see how it relates.

 

MathewA,

I'm curious, you put all the blame for these music issues on the music industry and appear to completely exhonerate the studio's of any wrong doing. Why? On what basis do you relieve them of responsibility?

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

I'm not MatthewA, but here's a thought: studios are the middle-man in this respect. If more is asked for the music rights, they can simply add the appropriate amount (assuming they have a hunch how many copies they will be able to sell) to the price. Can't they?

Except of course, that we the consumer will cry foul if we think the price is getting too high, accuse the studios of extravagant pricing (greed) and as a group refuse to buy the product (diminish the sales). Yes that's even a vicious circle (it reduces the number of copies sold) and indeed it diminishes the possible profit of the studios - but I would hardly rank concern about that last aspect that under "greedy and cheap".

(While the receiver of the fee for the music rights isn't bothered by the sales figures: he/she already received a fixed sum! It's the studios who are taking and faced with the commercial risk.)


Cees

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.

For the most part I agree with you. The terms greedy and cheap have been thrown around a bit too much when it is really just business doing business. Like negotiating a raise.  I was maintaining the language being used in counterpoints when it really isn't my view and I should have clarified that.

The studio's are the middleman, but they have the ultimate decison on whether to release based on their costs and estimated returns. So while the right's holder get a set amount with low risk the studio's wouldn't go forward if the potential profits weren't worth the additional risk.

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.

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? 

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!"

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.

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

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

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.