Enough already Fox. Are we EVER going to see WKRP released? - Page 16

David Levine · 04-25-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radioman970

Just give us the whole show without the problem music and we can insert the tunes ourselves that we've paid for.

Then they would have to go back in and dub every line of dialogue that occurred over a problem song.

James@R · 04-25-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Thrasher

The public has spoken regarding the music issues, and it looks like most of them...don't care.

I suspect it's less of an issue because few of them probably associate any specific song with the show. Everyone remembers the turkey episode, Les' band-aids, or Herb dressed as a fish...but how many people remember that Johnny once played the Stones' Some Girls album? Adding to the confusion is the fact that many have grown up watching versions that were already edited for syndication. (And have no fond memories of things like Les getting ready to "Hot Blooded".)

For this reason, Fox could've easily gotten away with including just a few key songs to humor the fans. The best thing about the strong sales is that it may convince them that the show could carry a higher pricetag. They won't license all the songs for season two, but maybe they would include the ones that are integral to scenes or dialogue.

If fans want to influence them with feedback, this is the approach I would use. They should let them know which episodes feature crucial songs worth including, such as Tiny Dancer in "The Americanization of Ivan". If the subsitutes did not translate to any lost footage, I think many fans would regard it as an acceptable compromise.

Personally, I just hope Fox will at least consider my request for a 30 minute featurette spotlighting Jan Smithers in the "Baseball" episode. Surely there is some behind the scenes footage out there somewhere?!

TravisR · 04-25-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewA

Because the market will not bear such a price. No one will pay that kind of money for gum. They will buy something else instead.

Of course they would buy something else (and that's exactly what Fox did- they didn't like the price so they didn't buy it). That doesn't change the fact that I can charge whatever I want for something that I own.

MatthewA · 04-25-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisR

Of course they would buy something else (and that's exactly what Fox did- they didn't like the price so they didn't buy it). That doesn't change the fact that I can charge whatever I want for something that I own.

That's just price-gouging.

If it's wrong for gas stations to overcharge for their product, it should be equally wrong for musicians to overcharge for theirs. It is a question of basic morality and fairness. And if the government needs to regulate licensing fees, so be it.

TravisR · 04-25-2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewA

That's just price-gouging.

If it's wrong for gas stations to overcharge for their product, it should be equally wrong for musicians to overcharge for theirs. It is a question of basic morality and fairness. And if the government needs to regulate licensing fees, so be it.

The economy would collapse if gas companies just set a crazy price for their product. A musician charging a ludicrous amount for a song isn't going to do that.

MatthewA · 04-25-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisR

The economy would collapse if gas companies just set a crazy price for their product. A musician charging a ludicrous amount for a song isn't going to do that.

I never implied that it would hurt the whole economy. But it has already demonstrably hurt another segment of the entertainment industry. Therefore it must be brought under control.

TravisR · 04-25-2007, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewA

But it has already demonstrably hurt another segment of the entertainment industry. Therefore it must be brought under control.

So the government should tell people what they are allowed to charge for their work? What is the price that artists should be allowed to charge for a song? I think it should be $1 a song because that would help drive down the prices of DVDs.

Corey3rd · 04-25-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisR

So the government should tell people what they are allowed to charge for their work? What is the price that artists should be allowed to charge for a song? I think it should be $1 a song because that would help drive down the prices of DVDs.

but the government already controls how much a radio station has to pay the record companies for playing a song either over the air or the internet. But why let the government solve this issue - it must come from within the industry to figure out ways to be cooperative.

These publishing houses have been bought and sold at outrageous prices. And they have been used to juggle huge bank loans (look at Michael Jackson and what he's had to do to the Beatles catalog). So they can't do anything reasonable anymore because a good of investors want the fat dividends.

In the case of Pink Floyd's Dogs, when was the last time you heard it on the radio? it would probably do the band good to have the song on the WKRP soundtrack to move a couple copies of Animals (not like classic rock radio plays anything from it). And Oldie radio is dying out (along with it's original fans), the folks behind Fats Domino, Elvis and Johnny Mathis records and publishing should be seeing Happy Days as a way to connect with a new audience. Maybe they should set up a part of the DVD that allows you to link through the episode to iTunes to buy the complete song?

cafink · 04-25-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewA

That's just price-gouging.

If it's wrong for gas stations to overcharge for their product, it should be equally wrong for musicians to overcharge for theirs. It is a question of basic morality and fairness. And if the government needs to regulate licensing fees, so be it.

It's not "wrong" for gas stations to charge whatever they want for their product. Overcharging is a bad idea because they'll lose business when consumers will go elsewhere for their gas, but there's nothing "wrong" with making stupid business decisions.

You say that it's a question of morality and fairness. Indeed, it is immoral and unfair to use coercion and force (as through governmental regulation) to tell other what they can and can't do with their own property, be it gasoline or music.

Carlos Garcia · 04-25-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisR

So the government should tell people what they are allowed to charge for their work? What is the price that artists should be allowed to charge for a song? I think it should be $1 a song because that would help drive down the prices of DVDs.

The same way some people get their meds on the black market to avoid paying ripoff prices, I'm sure someone has the original KRP masters somewhere, and will be selling bootlegs to those who want the inferior, yet superior version.

MatthewA · 04-25-2007, 05:26 PM

No one in the record industry is smart enough to come up with the solutions you have mentioned.

Quote:

Overcharging is a bad idea because they'll lose business when consumers will go elsewhere for their gas, but there's nothing "wrong" with making stupid business decisions.

This is not*mere stupidity. These music publishers are taking advantage of a serious issue for which the industry seems uninterested in coming up with a solution where both sides win.

The fact that there was a standard rate for videotaped television shows which allowed WKRP and other taped shows to use the music at a lower cost suggests that that model should be used for DVD. I'm not suggesting putting a "price cap" at $1. That's just absurd. $1,000 or even $5,000 is a far more reasonable licensing fee. These songs are now going for $30,000 or $40,000 or more, regardless of the amount of time they are used. This fee would have to be set by BMI and ASCAP. IIRC, it was ASCAP who set the videotape fee in the first place. It is they, not the government, who would set such rates.

I just think there should be concern about more than just the bottom line, like consumer goodwill for instance.

And I agree the government should only get involved if it is absolutely necessary for them to do so. It may not be. Government involvement should always be the last resort when all other options fail. A miracle might occur and a standard licensing rate might be set for home video, making this point totally moot. I would never advocate it right away.