Shaw

Music Clearance

Music Clearance cannot be blamed entirely on the TV Studios and so on who package and produce the DVDs of our favorite TV Shows. The reason why so many shows are being hit is simple. Before DVD, when the shows were aired, there was no beef by copyright holders.

A few years back the whole nasty business with Napster and filesharing began. This led to a significant drop in CD sales. Whether sales are really that bad now is a matter of conjecture. The Music Industry is really behind all of this litigation. They, I believe, are trying to make up for lost revenue by acquiring large sums of cash for sales lost in the CD Department.

Thus, a whole new "Music Industry" is born. They believe that this is the way not only to get more cash, but also to destroy the competing DVD market to their "sagging" CD sales.

Once they have destroyed TV on DVD, they can then get back some of the money kids are spending (and adults too, I'm sure) on DVDs every week.

This is such a huge issue and the solutions to the problem will not be easy to find. We need some kind of place on the internet that is impartial, consumer based, knowledgeable about copyright law. We need to take a stand against the copyright holders who feel that they do not need to show any compassion or to strike a reasonable deal for any particular piece of music being used on any given DVD.

I have started a petition to clear "Stairway To Heaven" for use on SCTV. I believe that petitions may help in this area. If cash from the studios is not enough, perhaps Public Opinion would be. We need to start petitions for a lot of these shows and we must set a precedent and show that Music that was not cleared before can eventually be cleared due to public outrage.

We need to exert some kind of pressure on the copyright holders. Filesharing and Downloading will not achieve this as it has already been going on for some time now. We need a new way to show our dissatisfaction. We need ideas and we need to start our own campaign to gain public favor. This can all get very political very fast. Perhaps someone can even enact some kind of legislation in order to see that TV Shows can continue to use copyrighted music, since they were never told to "cease and desist" in the first place.

The big mistake the studios made was to agree to cut music. If all of the studios continued to use all of the music they had been using, it would have been far too expensive and costly for the Music Industry to stop them. Unfortunately, it is probably too late for that to happen now.

Any suggestions and ideas are welcome. I have my petition here for SCTV:

http://www.petitiononline.com/sctv109/petition.html


Please take a moment and look at it. If we had enough peitions flinged at the Copyright Holders, could this make a difference?

threerandot

Jeff Ulmer

Hold ups due to music licensing are not the fault of the copyright holders, they are the fault of the show's producers, who failed to negotiate video distribution as part of what they licensed in the first place. It is completely unreasonable to expect rights holders to simply hand over rightsm especially when the demand for that music is now higher than it was originally - that isn't the way the business, any business, works.

DVD Reviewer, digitallyOBSESSED.com | Othyrworld

Jon Martin

I wouldn't put too much effort into that STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN petition. It is pretty much a lost cause as LZ demand quite a bit for it.

Even just a few years ago, the movie WAYNE'S WORLD had a scene where Wayne went into a music store, picked up a guitar and played part of it (a salesperson stops him, points to a sign that says "No Stairway to Heaven").

This scene didn't even make it to video, just a few months later. They didn't allow them to keep the joke in the film. So, they had to just overdub a generic guitar riff.

So, for a TV show, where the song is actually used, it gets more expensive.

And this is nothing new. In the 80's, there were many films that never made it to video because of problems with music rights. It took years to clear the rights to such films as LAST PICTURE SHOW and HEAVY METAL.

Thomas Newton

To reissue a work in its original form, one needs to have clearances for all of the original elements. Artificial monopoly markets have no competition, and few constraints on a vendor's ability to be an obstructionist. The main constraint on obstructionist behavior would be compulsory licensing, and that only applies to publishing copyrights, not to recording ones.

If most vendors behave reasonably, and one is a real you-know-what, the vendor who is a you-know-what will get a disproportionate reward.

Jeff's mistake is to assume that because the system rewards vendors that act like obstructionist jerks, that there is nothing wrong with being one, and that this is the way things are supposed to be.

On the contrary, when you see vendors playing these games, it is a sign that something is badly broken.

Jeff Ulmer

Sorry Thomas, but there is no competition when you have a one-of-a-kind product, and unless you want us to live in a socialist society, those who have a uniqueness about their talent have every right to exploit it to the best of their ability. This isn't isolated to the music business, it applies in every industry. Should Donald Trump be compelled to serve burgers at McDonalds for $4/hour just because someone wants him to, when he can negotiate millions for his services elsewhere? Should your housing contractor be forced to build you an addition that wasn't part of the original contract? Should an employee be forced to work additional hours for no pay just because it will benefit the employer?

Of course not, and neither should rights holders be forced to hand over their work just because some producer didn't have the foresight to negotiate a deal for all uses of the music used to enhance their product, a product they in turn expect to make money off of. If there wasn't a great value in the music selected in the first place, the rights holders wouldn't have a negotiating leg to stand on. The producers weren't coerced into coosing their soundtracks in the first place, they chose the music in order to make their product more valuable to the consumer, and for that they damn well better be prepared to pay.

I suppose Thomas would encourage unions to give up striking for better pay or work conditions, just so they aren't seen as "obstructionist jerks."

DVD Reviewer, digitallyOBSESSED.com | Othyrworld

Jon Martin

On another point in the original post, just about all music companies are tied in some way with a DVD company. Sony, WB, Disney, Universal, they all also have music divisions. So, this isn't the music companies trying to destroy the dvd companies as they are all making money off it.

It is simply artists want to be paid for the use of their work. When many of these TV shows were aired there was no thought of even VHS, so this wasn't a part of the contracts. It has to be renegotiated. It is that simple, but can get a lot more complex over time as music libraries change hands, artists don't like the way the music was used etc.

Thomas Newton

Copies aren't one-of-kind products. If they were, there would be very little market for albums or TV season sets.


It's hard to keep from rolling with laughter at this one! It was Jefferson who explained why ideas (and by extension, expressions) "cannot, in nature, be the subject of property". His argument is very consistent with the basis of free market economics. It's the US Constitution that defines copyright as an optional, limited, artificial monopoly that is a means towards a public end.

Are you now going to suggest that the Founders wanted us to live in a socialist society?

Jeff Ulmer

Of course not, which is why we have artificial monopolies, without which none of the entertainment we enjoy would ever be created in the first place - why spend millions of dollars and years of your life working so another can come along and take the results for their own gain?
No, they're not, but the originals are, otherwise there would be no difference between having Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven or a Back Street Boys song, they'd be interchangeable. If you want to use a particular song by a particular artist you have no choice but to negotiate a fair market value for using it, just as you would if you wanted a particular actor to be part of your production.

DVD Reviewer, digitallyOBSESSED.com | Othyrworld

Paul Miller

Why should the laws be applied retroactively though to include to include past work when the people who created those TV shows at the time may not have included those songs if they knew they would have to pay rights fees on them? Especially since back when it aired, it was free advertising for the song.

If they want to change the law, I have no problem with that, but the law should be exclusive to TV shows made after the law took effect.

Would people tolerate being charged retroactively for items they bought in the past?

Paul

Glenn Overholt

But Paul, it isn't retroactive, it's a new use. Even on an old show, whenever a song plays the rights holder gets compensation for it. The songs are owned by the rights holders, and can (and do) charge for every playing of it.

I thought