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

[smithbrad]

once they sell lhotp to the wealthy, they arent gonna sell them again ?

all products are this way, in that they sell with the highest price they think they can - and then drop down to meet the masses.

I never really thought of selling a Blu-ray season for $20 as selling to the wealthy. You are using a consumer purchasing model where it doesn't belong. Using your model Super Bowl ads should be cheap after all these years with how long it has been around. I mean they sold to the wealthy so it should be in line with something I can afford now. In this scenario, music rights aren't being sold directly to a consumer but sold with the idea of someone else making money on it. Taking the Super Bowl scenario again, it's hard to justify charging the big dollars for use in a Super Bowl ad and then sell it on the cheap for a DVD release. Better to keep the price higher for potential big sales and lose out on the small ones. Better overall business.

when i was saying "time" - i did not mean to imply that patents/rights would run out - although i guess that could happen.

I wasn't either, but my take was that you were implying over time the price would become more reasonable "so to speak". I was pointing out that it's been 50 years for some of these songs (e.g., Wonder Years, China Beach), and apparently they are still being unreasonable with regards to their use. So when is this "time" going to come about.

i have to disagree with your blu-ray statement. it seems to be when they do fix stuff.

i think it would be more accurate to say - that once they decided to go to blu-ray, they fixed things up to justify the extra price. and "fixed dvds" were simply a by-product.

there have been a lot of dvd re-releases where the product was not fixed, in terms of editing, etc.

so i have to think that the main thrust of getting un-edited episodes, etc. does come from the blu-ray release project.

They've continued to fix things when the funds, resources, and sales support it. Twilight Zone and Start Trek (TOS) were continually being improved while still on DVD before the advent of Blu-ray. What I will say is that moving to HD for future syndication has been the bigger motivator. New DVD and Blu-ray releases just come with the territory.

 

[jimmyjet]

the super bowl is an absolutely terrible argument. it is not a product that one sells. it is an avenue for selling ads.

so the cost of an ad is strictly based upon how many people watch, and the ability to make revenue.

so the age of the super bowl is totally superfluous. it could be one year old and be popular or not. 50 years old and be popular or not.

so in now way can that be used to make any sort of comparison to my argument or even what you are arguing.

but to answer your question about time. it isnt really the age of the song that matters.

what i am referring to is the process of placing tv shows/movies onto disc with music on that disc that requires royalties to be paid.

that process is not anywhere near as long as the 50s or 60s.

and that is the process and time to which i refer.

if we take rock around the clock, the first considered rock and roll hit - in 1955.

how many times has ownership changed ? who owns it now ?

and how much "time" has elapsed since dvd makers wanted to get music rights to the song for their show ?

this is the time that i mean.

the current owners of the song have the ability to make some money by licensing the rights. if no agreement is made, it is because the parties have not come to terms on how much the song is worth.

and they can either piddle paddle around and make absolutely nothing, or come to some agreement and make something.

and i am stating that making money will eventually win out. so my argument is an extremely simple one.

regarding the fugitive, as i already mentioned, the fixes were made to the dvd, for the most part. my waiting is simply for pq, in this particular case.

i already stated that some fixes have been made for dvd, where double dipping has occurred. but bet your boots, there will be triple dipping for the blu-rays !!

i have no argument with you that they will try to make us buy the same show as many times as possible !!

another poster mentioned stuff that was improbable that has now happened. let me state something that should be obvious from that statement.

and that is, "improbable" was a conclusion reached by someone or some group. based upon their interpretation of what they thought the facts were.

but here is something that has no argument to it. and that is, if "improbable" occurs too often, that only means that the entity coming up with those conclusions is not basing his conclusions on reality.

it would be like flipping a coin, and having it come up heads 75% of the time. when you thought it should come up 50% of the time. the only logical conclusion is to realize that the coin is weighted so that it turns up such - a fact that was not originally being considered.

 

[smithbrad]

Just like you feel you can flip my arguments around I feel comfortable I can do the exact same to yours any and every time. But today, I don't have the time to take each one, one by one and tell you why I believe you have it wrong. We have two totally different perspectives on it, and that isn't going to change. But from time to time when I see you reiterate yours, I'm going to post on it. Not because I think I can change your mind but to give readers a different viewpoint to ponder.

I'll just make one point today that is the basis for much of your view "they can make something or make nothing, and making some thing will win out in the long run". Who says they aren't making something? There are other revenue streams available that require music rights to be cleared. Who says DVD releases is a major stream of income for them? Maybe they are doing just fine selling higher to those that can afford it. Maybe they feel lowering their price might actually hurt future business. And then there is the other perspective, maybe they don't care? Maybe they want to be a hard case because they don't need the DVD revenue. Both these scenario's mean no sale and continuation of some music substitution in TV releases. The more music in the show the higher the likelihood that some replacements will take place. Why is it that Time Life couldn't get all the rights cleared for China Beach and Carol Burnett if something is always better than nothing? Please explain.

You talk about the improbably, I agree the improbably can happen. The big difference though is that you seem to bet on the improbably happening a whole lot more often than me. Maybe we should try to get a count on how many times the improbable haa actual occurred and how many people think are still out there.

 

[Neil Brock]

Hopefully Jimmy doesn't run his business the way he expects music rights holders to run theirs. Yes, I can just imagine having a business, like say a law firm or doctor's office. Your rates are $400 an hour but if someone comes in and offers you $25 you take it because "something is better than nothing". Except it isn't. Everything has a value. Unless you are hard up for money or business, you don't take pennies on the dollar just for the sake of getting something. All that does is devalue what you own for the future as now you've established a precedent of accepting a lousy price. Short answer is most shows will NEVER be seen again in their original form. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

 

[schan1269]

Hopefully Jimmy doesn't run his business the way he expects music rights holders to run theirs. Yes, I can just imagine having a business, like say a law firm or doctor's office. Your rates are $400 an hour but if someone comes in and offers you $25 you take it because "something is better than nothing". Except it isn't. Everything has a value. Unless you are hard up for money or business, you don't take pennies on the dollar just for the sake of getting something. All that does is devalue what you own for the future as now you've established a precedent of accepting a lousy price. Short answer is most shows will NEVER be seen again in their original form. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Exactly. You see independent truckers with signs on their truck..."Say no to cheap freight"By Jimmy's logic..."you already bought the truck...and you got fuel in it."

 

[Gary OS]

It's not what I want to be reality, but it is reality. Brad's got this one right, imho. I never, ever expect to see The Wonder Years, as one example, released with every NOB (Night of Broadcast) song intact. It's just not reality. Heck, we couldn't even get a clean release of In the Heat of the Night, and it used very, very few pop songs. No way is a show like The Wonder Years going to make it out unscathed. It's just not reality, in spite of my heart's desire wishing that wasn't so.


Gary "sad but true, unfortunately" O.

 

[jimmyjet]

when wonder years comes out unedited, you all will be getting A BIG I TOLD YOU SO.

 

[jimmyjet]

do any of you actually have actual experience with the handling of music rights ?

by that, i mean some sort of knowledge about how the worth of a song is established ?

 

[Gary OS]

when wonder years comes out unedited, you all will be getting A BIG I TOLD YOU SO.

Jimmy, if that happens (I have to say "if", not "when", because I'm not convinced - no offense to you intended) I'll be the first to immediately eat crow and trumpet the fact that you called it. And if ever I hoped I was wrong on something, this is it.


Gary "I just don't see it happening - unfortunately" O.

 

[schan1269]

do any of you actually have actual experience with the handling of music rights ?by that, i mean some sort of knowledge about how the worth of a song is established ?

Obviously you don't. Especially since you like to buy CDs, copy them to iTunes, then sell them.How many have you borrowed from the library and downloaded to itunes?

 

[jimmyjet]

okay gary,

i am not a big admirer of "i told you so". i was just a bit irritated.

but this argument about the licensing of rock around the clock (ratc) being sold at the same price to everyone seems ludicrous.

does anyone in the business actually expect it to work this way ?

does anyone in the business expect the owner of ratc to charge the same price to people purchasing the rights to put out a gazillion cds of it as someone who has a movie with the song in it, or someone with a minor tv show with the song in it ?

if so, then this is why there are problems.

like the super bowl, the lawyer example is a terrible one.

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

 

[Randy Korstick]

Actually the Lawyer Argument is a good comparison and its maybe where you are not understanding how music rights work in a business sense.
In Neils example a Lawyer gets $400.00 because that is his established price and it is in line with what other Lawyers make. People might say you are too expensive and offer $25.00 and say isn't it better to make something than nothing. If the Lawyer took the $25.00 he would now be lowering his standard and value of his services and would now make $25.00 for all future jobs so he is going to take nothing in this case knowing that he will still get enough jobs at $400.00 to satisfy him. Music rights work very similar. The value of the song is not negotiable in most cases and if the DVD producer cannot afford that price then the song owner will just continue collecting money from other sources that can afford it. If TV on DVD Season sets were all between $100.00 -$125.00 per season then most music rights would not be an issue as there would be enough money for them but the market changed and DVD sets are down to $30.00 to $40.00 retail so music rights are now an issue which is where we are today.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi randy,

the lawyer example is not a good one. i will get into that later, if necessary.

but i wanted to speak to someone who has music rights knowledge.

it sounds as though you might.

you stated that in most cases, the value of the song is not negotiable.

is this because the music rights holders arent willing ? or is there some other reason ?

 

[TV_Fan]

Here is a link to an interesting article about music and TV on DVD. It was written after thirthysomething finally came about but undoubtedly still apllies today: http://www.thewrap.com/tv/article/music-licensing-fees-keeping-shows-dvd-5486

 

[jimmyjet]

excellent article.

from reading it, it does not seem to me that songs have the same fees.

many deals can be made.

so it reverts right back to my original thoughts.

there is a bunch of squabbling about how much a song is worth.

and no one is gonna make money on any particular show until a collaboration is reached.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Music rights are usually not negotiable because they are already getting the price they are asking for somewhere else and if they lower it for the DVD release they will have to lower it for other future projects when they believe they will still able to get the current standard price because they already are. The DVD producers can only afford a certain amount in their budget. DVD budgets have decreased as the retail price and sales have decreased. They know they can't suddenly charge 3-4 times as much for a particular release as there would be a public outcry over the high price and most would not buy it so they would lose money so that is why the show just stays unreleased until they decide to either use what music they have and replace what they can't afford or just not release it at all if they think the public will not buy it with replacements.

hi randy,

the lawyer example is not a good one. i will get into that later, if necessary.

but i wanted to speak to someone who has music rights knowledge.

it sounds as though you might.

you stated that in most cases, the value of the song is not negotiable.

is this because the music rights holders arent willing ? or is there some other reason ?

 

[jimmyjet]

in order to be fair to both sides, that a more equitable way of determining the worth of a song in a show would be to have a deal based upon sales of the show.

if the show sells well, both parties do well.

if the show does not sell well, both parties do less than possibly expected.

 

[schan1269]

in order to be fair to both sides, that a more equitable way of determining the worth of a song in a show would be to have a deal based upon sales of the show.if the show sells well, both parties do well.if the show does not sell well, both parties do less than possibly expected.

That would work...if everything went MOD.Shudder the thought....

 

[jimmyjet]

Music rights are usually not negotiable because they are already getting the price they are asking for somewhere else and if they lower it for the DVD release they will have to lower it for other future projects when they believe they will still able to get the current standard price because they already are.

why does someone expect a price for a particular dvd release to be the price for another dvd release, or some future project ?

that reasoning is in conflict with how the worth of the song was established. when that occurs, problems follow.

 

[Randy Korstick]

That is a good article but keep in mind it is from 4 and 1/2 years ago when TV on DVD was still in its heyday and it mentions the price of $59.99 a season. The prices and number of units that can be sold have both gone down alot since then which means there is even less money available to pay for music. Wonder Years will most likely be released some day but the chances of it being released without any music changes are astronomically low. It would take a small independent distributer that is both Rich and a huge fan of the show so that they could pay for all the music rights knowing that the DVD release will most likely lose money because of the high price they had to pay for all the music and knowing that potential DVD sales are going down every year. Like I said Astronomically low chance of it being releases with all original music.