TV Shows that are unavailable to DVD due to music clearance BS (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

Jimmy is right. No song is worth the kind of money they want, and music publishers are the some of the greediest people on Earth.

Let's face it, most pop songs are the same four-chord, verse-verse-bridge-verse 32-bar boy-loves-girl schlock for which a standard rate needs to be set. $25,000 for a song is highway robbery, anything more than that (i.e. John Waters having to pay $70,000 to use "Tomorrow" in Serial Mom) is criminal. Even if they have the "right" to charge what they want, they are still ending up with nothing. When most musicians, bands and singers struggle to make a living, even with touring, while record and music publishing industry lowlifes and crooks still get rich, something is wrong.

And as for lawyers, defendants who cannot afford private attorneys usually end up with a public defender, the legal equivalent of generic stock music.

 

[jimmyjet]

randy,

all my questions to you have a purpose.

if a businessman wants to garner the most success, he needs to be rational about what the worth of his product is, and act accordingly.

i am not on either side, the music rights holder or the dvd releaser.

but rather on a neutral side - which is what will put forth product to the public, garnering some income for both sides, as well as satisfaction for the public. in this case, a win-win-win scenario.

now you and i just happen to be very smart investors, and we just bought ratc from some very smart owners.

which means a sale was agreed upon based upon reality.

so what factors went into the agreement of the worth of this song ?

we know we have some cd products that are selling well, that will bring in a lot of income. other cd products that are somewhat a dog, and not worth much. we have established some sort of price that we think we can sell our rights to some sort of new release.

we also have a bunch of movies and tv shows that will bring in some profit for us. we have super blockbuster over here that we think will sell a gajillion copies. and our song has a lot of impact on this show. therefore ratc can garner us a lot of money, and we will charge accordingly, based upon that.

on the other hand, we have a few crappy tv shows that are never gonna be big sellers, and our song is not of any big importance. SO IT AINT WORTH MUCH in those particular applications. AND WE DID NOT PAY MUCH for those particular applications.

so no way in tarnation should there be some business precedent that establishes the same rate for our song on 2 products that have already been created. cuz the worth can be extremely different.

which is why i brought up the type of deal such that if there is some argument to how much the show is worth, then allow both parties to "benefit" based upon the sale of the show.

now of all the arguments that brad gave, one i dont disagree with is that there are probably some instances where the rights holders want to be obstinate, or simply dont care cuz the value to them is too low to worry about.

but for the most part, an investor typically wants to maximize his investment.

so lets pretend that you and i are in that boat with ratc.

we both know that we cant make much from some of the shows that are somewhat dogs.

but we can make some, and we then agree upon a deal with the dvd makers, USING THAT MINDSET.

and my main argument still holds. most of these squabblers are mainly concerned about getting the most money that they can.

and once they have beaten their heads against the wall often enough, BOTH SIDES will arrive at an equitable solution for both, and put out a product.

 

[JoeDoakes]

We ought to add a "Room 12A" graphic for some of these threads: .

 

[smithbrad]

brad, you intentionally mis-stated my thoughts. please indicate where i twisted your argument around.

Jimmy, exactly where did I "intentionally" misstate your thoughts?

By "flipping" around I was implying that we are so far apart in our views on the subject that it is easy for each to come up with a rebuttal. As in a debate, both sides feel so strongly that they each feel they can present a rationale case defending their position on a point by point basis. However, at some point the discussion becomes repetitive and nothing new is stated.

Twisted is not a word I would have used since it is implies purposely misrepresenting the information to make a point. I would say we are so far apart the we either don't understand a point being made or just flat out don't agree with it, but I wouldn't say either attempted to "twist" or misrepresent the other.

 

[Ockeghem]

We ought to add a "Room 12A" graphic for some of these threads: .

That's one of my all-time favorite skits by them. I first heard it on audio tape while driving in my car in the early 1970s.

 

[jimmyjet]

Jimmy, exactly where did I "intentionally" misstate your thoughts?

By "flipping" around I was implying that we are so far apart in our views on the subject that it is easy for each to come up with a rebuttal. As in a debate, both sides feel so strongly that they each feel they can present a rationale case defending their position on a point by point basis. However, at some point the discussion becomes repetitive and nothing new is stated.

Twisted is not a word I would have used since it is implies purposely misrepresenting the information to make a point. I would say we are so far apart the we either don't understand a point being made or just flat out don't agree with it, but I wouldn't say either attempted to "twist" or misrepresent the other.

thank you brad,

i appreciate that. i thought you had admitted to doing so, to get my goat or whatever !!

 

[jimmyjet]

fyi,

i was a highly paid computer systems analyst/programmer.

i am quite good at looking at a problem, listening to input, and deriving solutions.

but there needs to be a common goal in mind.

analysis can not solve ego problems, or other emotional issues.

that being said, i am assuming for the most part, that the problem lies in each party wanting to maximize their income. and are concerned that they are giving away something too cheaply.

the dvd releaser commonly puts up all the expenses for a release. the music rights person is not at risk, in that sense. and if the dvds dont sell well, he is out all the money he pays to the licensee.

on the other hand, the licensee fears that he charges too cheaply for something, only to see it sell a million copies - without the licensee having any benefit from the sales.

there are equitable ways to handle these problems.

and since i think that the majority fall into this area, i think the majority will be solved.

otoh, make room for daddy seems to at least possibly fall into the emotional area. if so, i dont feel so confident about it. cuz one simply cant predict emotional issues. they could cure up tomorrow, or be there a century later.

 

[jimmyjet]

We ought to add a "Room 12A" graphic for some of these threads: .

i watched the first couple of minutes. it was cute. kinda reminded me of the who's on first schtick.

 

[Gary OS]

thank you brad,

i appreciate that. i thought you had admitted to doing so, to get my goat or whatever !!

Jimmy, I can assure you that Brad doesn't roll that way (to use modern vernacular).


Gary "he's a stand up guy that would never 'gig' someone just for the sake of it" O.

 

[Neil Brock]

So, what do you think about The Beatles charging $250K for use of any of their songs?

 

[jimmyjet]

hi neil,

to be honest, to give you an opinion about a specific subject, i would need to know all the particulars.

if the beatles are the owners, they have the right (like any other owner) to charge what they want.

and the buyers have the right to buy or not.

paul mccartney will probably be able to eat tomorrow irregardless of whether he makes a sale.

there is also a big difference in licensing a song in an already completed project, versus licensing the same song in a new film or tv show.

in the former, we already know whether it was a hit, etc. much can be gleaned as to the popularity of the show, the ability of it to make income, etc.

so if the purpose is strictly investment, the worth of the song is directly related to the ability of the show to make money.

while that is also true of a new show, it is much more of a crapshoot as to how well the new show will turn out.

but since this discussion is about getting new shows out, lets agree to talk only about that aspect.

if i were the unbiased person that both sides hired to come up with an equitable solution, i would talk to each side alone, and hear what they said.

then have them meet together, and see if we could not iron out said issues so that everyone could be reasonably happy.

it would make things much easier if everyone saw this as one product that has ownership percentages for everyone. that way everyone is in the same boat. all benefit or not based upon sales.

but again, there are all sorts of models and various percentages on those models to create for every individual project, such that it should not be all that difficult IF BOTH PARTIES goal is to create a product and make some money by doing so.

 

[Frank Soyke]

Honestly Jimmy, You seem like a good guy with good intentions and great optimism but your ongoing "everything will come out one day" mantra is a little ludicrous. Between all the shows with clearance issues, shows with no audience that won't sell, and the ongoing distributor apathy toward b/w shows there is much we will never see. I feel many of the shows that have not been released so far will never see the light of day. When I see the press announcements for Many Happy Returns, Open All Night, and the like, I will gladly eat crow.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi frank,

i have never heard of those 2 shows, so no opinion about them.

but i have stated my opinion on some shows, like lhotp (which i am already correct).

and wonder years (in which i will be correct).

and since that is considered the holy grail of shows not being released due to music issues, i am not picking the "easy" ones.

when one stops watching the kettle boil, it whistles at ya all the time !!

 

[Neil Brock]

Anyone who says that "everything will eventually be available" is 1) Naive, 2) Unreleastic and 3) Completely lacking in any idea as to how the studios operate.

While there's a slim chance, as there is for anything, there is little likelihood of any black and white one season sitcom coming out at this point. Same goes for one season black and white dramas. Just not going to happen. Even long-running, successful black and white shows seem unlikely. A popular, well-syndicated show like Ben Casey can't even get a release. Also, what people don't understand is that there are no tape transfers on a lot of this stuff and going back and remastering from 35mm negatives is expensive, thus making any releases cost prohibitive. At least certain studios, like MGM for instance, did tape transfers for all of their shows. Turner did as well but so much got moved around with the Warner takeover that who knows if all of the tapes are still able to be located. But CBS and Fox for instance have never bothered with shows that they haven't had sales on. They are just sitting in the vaults, most likely in deep storage, on film or 2-inch videotape in the case of sitcoms.

 

[jimmyjet]

just to make clear, i did not say EVERYTHING.

but you can add ben casey to my list.

it seems like not too long ago, dr. kildare was never gonna be released.

 

[jimmyjet]

there are so many instances already "where never gonna be released" has already been released.

some people like to play pessimistic. i have an older friend who is like that.

that way, he (rationalizes) that he is never disappointed !!

i just know human nature, and how it works.

and sit back, and let things happen as they predictably do.

 

[jimmyjet]

now neil,

since you have some contacts that we dont have, could you please urge the mrfd folks to stop bickering over some personal issues that occurred 50 some years ago, and put the dang show out complete and uncut !!

 

[smithbrad]

but i have stated my opinion on some shows, like lhotp (which i am already correct).

Hey Jimmie, how so? You also made indications in other threads that as long as we buy lesser quality releases (lets just say mediocre due to syndicated cuts, lower video quality, music substitution), that we give the producers of these releases the okay to continue the practice, and that the only way to stop it is to not buy until they deliver near perfect releases (i.e., sending them the message). LHOTP falls into this category of a mediocre release and yet we are about to get a better release. How does this fits your model?

While I agree that it can and does sometimes allow the producers of these releases to be lazy, it also many times provides an important interim release that if sold in decent fashion by us leads to the viability of these near perfect later releases. I think LHOTP fits that scenario perfectly.

 

[MatthewA]

So, what do you think about The Beatles charging $250K for use of any of their songs?

It's part of the reason I despise the song "Imagine." John Lennon imagining no possessions took an awful lot of work.

 

[smithbrad]

just to make clear, i did not say EVERYTHING.

but you can add ben casey to my list.

it seems like not too long ago, dr. kildare was never gonna be released.

To be fair Jimmie, when you present your theory in generalized terms it leaves the impression that you mean everything. Even if at times you reiterate that it doesn't. In that same way many of these releases you talk about as being stated as never going to be released fall into the same category. Some may say never out of frustration for the industry, but I'm pretty sure what the majority really mean is that it is a low probability. Personally, I'm not one that deals in absolutes.

So you can say that in your opinion too many are being pessimistic about this industry, but they may still have just cause in that while a few of the more improbable higher profile titles may have been released of late, or making in-roads to being released in the near future, they can list so many more titles that are still improbable for various reasons. It can be a numbers game in that if a person see a few sneak through but still has a 100+ on their desired list than the future still looks dim. On the other hand, the same may not be true of someone else with a smaller wish list.

It easy when a notable "improbable" title comes out to say "see what I mean", but if say Neil and or others put together their laundry list of desired releases that they feel are still improbable will you go on record as stating that you believe 90%, 75%, or even 50% of these titles will be released some day, intact? I think part of the problem here is an apples and oranges argument. You are picking just a few titles that have either come about or close to being announced to justify your general position of the market. Others are thinking about all the other titles that they believe are improbable. It would help to get clarification on whether you are just talking about a few high profile holdouts or the industry in general. Saying "see" in reference to a handful of titles already released is not difficult. You've stated "Wonder Years" and "Ben Casey", but how many more would you put your stamp on for all to see over the years to gauge if your theory actually works?

Anyone want to make a list for Jimmie to review? And I don't mean titles that can't possibly comes out because the elements have been destroyed, but a list of titles that could legitimately be released but are being held back for various reasons.

I'll throw out (that are on my list for completely intact releases):
- Lassie
- Range Rider
- My Three Sons
- 12 O'Clock High
- The Third man
- Paper Chase