Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Music for hockey highlight video

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 3, 2004 10:08:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

We are making a 3min video of a boys hockey team. It is for fun and maybe
get them motivated. Highlights of goals, off ice traing etc. Any
suggestions for good background music. We already have Tina Turners simply
the best.

thanks for any ideas
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 10:08:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

If it was me, I'd dump the Tina Turner...for the young boys you need to go
with ROCK, like they do on ESPN highlights. Fast paced, shows action, no
words to try an listen too. Nothing sappy. Your music tastes are not
theirs, trust me.

http://www.superexoticar.com/images/Take_Two_2.wmv

rqo

"Ann" <almacmil@is.dal.ca> wrote in message news:c761qv$ccs$1@News.Dal.Ca...
> We are making a 3min video of a boys hockey team. It is for fun and maybe
> get them motivated. Highlights of goals, off ice traing etc. Any
> suggestions for good background music. We already have Tina Turners simply
> the best.
>
> thanks for any ideas
>
>
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 10:08:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Ann" <almacmil@is.dal.ca> wrote in message news:c761qv$ccs$1@News.Dal.Ca...
> We are making a 3min video of a boys hockey team. It is for fun and maybe
> get them motivated. Highlights of goals, off ice traing etc. Any
> suggestions for good background music. We already have Tina Turners simply
> the best.

Then you've already committed copyright infringement. "It's for fun," is not
a defense to infringement.

>
> thanks for any ideas
>
>
Related resources
May 3, 2004 11:12:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Try www.freeplaymusic.com

They have several CDs of Sports Highlights music that can be
downloaded and its royalty free for non-commercial uses. I used some
of the selections last year for a soccer highlight video and it worked
really well.

"rqo" <safetyo@nospambellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<k9wlc.66011$Uz1.32790@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
> If it was me, I'd dump the Tina Turner...for the young boys you need to go
> with ROCK, like they do on ESPN highlights. Fast paced, shows action, no
> words to try an listen too. Nothing sappy. Your music tastes are not
> theirs, trust me.
>
> http://www.superexoticar.com/images/Take_Two_2.wmv
>
> rqo
>
> "Ann" <almacmil@is.dal.ca> wrote in message news:c761qv$ccs$1@News.Dal.Ca...
> > We are making a 3min video of a boys hockey team. It is for fun and maybe
> > get them motivated. Highlights of goals, off ice traing etc. Any
> > suggestions for good background music. We already have Tina Turners simply
> > the best.
> >
> > thanks for any ideas
> >
> >
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 11:31:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7664a$75ka$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Ann" <almacmil@is.dal.ca> wrote in message
news:c761qv$ccs$1@News.Dal.Ca...
> > We are making a 3min video of a boys hockey team. It is for fun and
maybe
> > get them motivated. Highlights of goals, off ice traing etc. Any
> > suggestions for good background music. We already have Tina Turners
simply
> > the best.
>
> Then you've already committed copyright infringement. "It's for fun," is
not
> a defense to infringement.

LOL
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 12:38:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Laugh while you can, monkey boy. People have been sued into the poor-house
for a lot less lately. The RIAA is quite serious about these things. So
much so, they got congress to make just this sort of thing a felony
($100,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison for copying a single song off a
CD into your home video).

"It's for fun," is even less of a defense than the old "it's fair use". At
least "fair use" used to be a valid defense (and it still is, so long as we
aren't talking a digital copy).

There have already been several people picked up for a single "infraction".
Granted, it probably wouldn't stand up in court -- but so far everybody
that's been asked to has ponied up $3000 - $5000 to the MPAA to get them
off their back rather than go to court (which could take years and
considerable amounts of cash).



FLY135 wrote:

>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c7664a$75ka$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> "Ann" <almacmil@is.dal.ca> wrote in message
> news:c761qv$ccs$1@News.Dal.Ca...
>> > We are making a 3min video of a boys hockey team. It is for fun and
> maybe
>> > get them motivated. Highlights of goals, off ice traing etc. Any
>> > suggestions for good background music. We already have Tina Turners
> simply
>> > the best.
>>
>> Then you've already committed copyright infringement. "It's for fun," is
> not
>> a defense to infringement.
>
> LOL

--
remove .spam from address to reply by e-mail.
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 12:38:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"James McIninch" <james.mcininch@comcast.net.spam> wrote in message
news:f5ylc.22081$0H1.2132413@attbi_s54...
> Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

FWIW, I don't think FLY135 was trying to mock me, per se. I've engaged in
Usenet discussion with him before, and, though we've sometimes disagreed,
he's always been civil and reasonable. "Monkey boy" is really uncalled for.

> People have been sued into the poor-house
> for a lot less lately. The RIAA is quite serious about these things. So
> much so, they got congress to make just this sort of thing a felony
> ($100,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison for copying a single song off a
> CD into your home video).
>
> "It's for fun," is even less of a defense than the old "it's fair use". At
> least "fair use" used to be a valid defense (and it still is, so long as
we
> aren't talking a digital copy).

As you noted, fair use is still a valid doctrine. It is, unfortunately,
misunderstood by a lot of people and that which they think is fair use
simply isn't.

I haven't ventured an opinion on the likelihood of the OP being sued for
infringement. It may be quite low though, as you've noted, lots of
relatively de minimus infringers are finding themselves sued as of late.
The point though, isn't whether the OP will be caught (perhaps so, perhaps
not), but whether what the OP proposes is legal. It isn't.

>
> There have already been several people picked up for a single
"infraction".
> Granted, it probably wouldn't stand up in court -- but so far everybody
> that's been asked to has ponied up $3000 - $5000 to the MPAA to get them
> off their back rather than go to court (which could take years and
> considerable amounts of cash).

$5,000 is a bargain compared to the minimum 6 figures it takes to
competently defend an infringement action.

>
>
>
> FLY135 wrote:
>
> >
> > "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:c7664a$75ka$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >>
> >> "Ann" <almacmil@is.dal.ca> wrote in message
> > news:c761qv$ccs$1@News.Dal.Ca...
> >> > We are making a 3min video of a boys hockey team. It is for fun and
> > maybe
> >> > get them motivated. Highlights of goals, off ice traing etc. Any
> >> > suggestions for good background music. We already have Tina Turners
> > simply
> >> > the best.
> >>
> >> Then you've already committed copyright infringement. "It's for fun,"
is
> > not
> >> a defense to infringement.
> >
> > LOL
>
> --
> remove .spam from address to reply by e-mail.
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 12:38:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

James McIninch wrote:

>
> ($100,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison for copying a single song off a
> CD into your home video).

That's a mis-quote, at least as I understand the situation.

First, the RIAA written bill has not been signed into law yet.

Second, the actual terms as reported by all the technical outlets and Groklaw
had to do with where you PUT the copy.

The RIAA wants it to be a felony to place the copy in a folder that is
accessible to a P2P program.


>
>
> "It's for fun," is even less of a defense than the old "it's fair use". At
> least "fair use" used to be a valid defense (and it still is, so long as we
> aren't talking a digital copy).

Fair use is fair use.

Analog or digital is irrelevant in that context and must remain so. The
RIAA/MPAA notwithstanding.

The Canadians have seen the light on this one.
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 12:38:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <c76bvb$a7bn$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>, "PTRAVEL"
<ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > There have already been several people picked up for a single
> "infraction"... so far everybody
> > that's been asked to has ponied up $3000 - $5000 to the MPAA to get them
> > off their back....
>
> $5,000 is a bargain compared to the minimum 6 figures it takes to
> competently defend an infringement action.

But somewhat expensive compared to the $25 it would cost to license a cue
from a site like SoundDogs.com, or the $75 to get a complete CD of sports
rock from a buyout music library.

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 12:38:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:SEE-SIGFILE-0305041829460001@192.168.1.100...
> In article <c76bvb$a7bn$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>, "PTRAVEL"
> <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > There have already been several people picked up for a single
> > "infraction"... so far everybody
> > > that's been asked to has ponied up $3000 - $5000 to the MPAA to get
them
> > > off their back....
> >
> > $5,000 is a bargain compared to the minimum 6 figures it takes to
> > competently defend an infringement action.
>
> But somewhat expensive compared to the $25 it would cost to license a cue
> from a site like SoundDogs.com, or the $75 to get a complete CD of sports
> rock from a buyout music library.

Quite so, and that's what I recommend to commercial videographers: buy-outs
or royalty free libraries. I used SmartSounds for my commercial videos.


>
> --
> Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
> Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
> Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 1:34:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c76bvb$a7bn$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "James McIninch" <james.mcininch@comcast.net.spam> wrote in message
> news:f5ylc.22081$0H1.2132413@attbi_s54...
> > Laugh while you can, monkey boy.
>
> FWIW, I don't think FLY135 was trying to mock me, per se. I've engaged in
> Usenet discussion with him before, and, though we've sometimes disagreed,
> he's always been civil and reasonable. "Monkey boy" is really uncalled
for.

You give me too much credit :) . Actually I hit the send button before I
finished. I didn't add... "It's for fun," is actually a defense in the
criminal code. If it's not for profit (i.e. "It's for fun," ) then there is
a dollar amount and time frame that allows copying without a criminal
offense.

While it is true that you could be tried in civil court, I really doubt that
the RIAA is serious about people who snip some music for personal videos.
This would be inconsistant with everything I've seen reported where there
are primarily going after music pirates.

> I haven't ventured an opinion on the likelihood of the OP being sued for
> infringement. It may be quite low though, as you've noted, lots of
> relatively de minimus infringers are finding themselves sued as of late.
> The point though, isn't whether the OP will be caught (perhaps so, perhaps
> not), but whether what the OP proposes is legal. It isn't.

Technically it isn't legal, but it's not necessarily criminal. Which puts
it back in the civil arena.
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 1:34:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"FLY135" <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote in message
news:KVylc.3656$8S1.1743@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c76bvb$a7bn$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "James McIninch" <james.mcininch@comcast.net.spam> wrote in message
> > news:f5ylc.22081$0H1.2132413@attbi_s54...
> > > Laugh while you can, monkey boy.
> >
> > FWIW, I don't think FLY135 was trying to mock me, per se. I've engaged
in
> > Usenet discussion with him before, and, though we've sometimes
disagreed,
> > he's always been civil and reasonable. "Monkey boy" is really uncalled
> for.
>
> You give me too much credit :) . Actually I hit the send button before I
> finished. I didn't add... "It's for fun," is actually a defense in the
> criminal code. If it's not for profit (i.e. "It's for fun," ) then there
is
> a dollar amount and time frame that allows copying without a criminal
> offense.
>
> While it is true that you could be tried in civil court, I really doubt
that
> the RIAA is serious about people who snip some music for personal videos.
> This would be inconsistant with everything I've seen reported where there
> are primarily going after music pirates.

With respect to the RIAA, that's true. However, a couple of points. First,
it's not just the RIAA that is implicated here. Syncing music to video
results in creation of a derivative work. That's a reserved right and,
probably, not necessarily licensed to RIAA members. Accordingly, it's quite
possible that there are two potential plaintiffs, not one. Next, as I
always tell my clients, infringement actions aren't brought to recover
money, but to protect intellectual property rights, i.e. they're not profit
centers. If an IP owner wants to send a message to potential and actual
infringers, they'll sue someone and, probably, pick a defendant least able
to afford to maintain a defense. High schools have been sued for putting on
plays without rights, church choirs have been sued for making copies of
hymns, etc. This topic comes up most often in the context of wedding videos
("Can I put the bride's favorite song on the video?").

As I said, I'm not venturing an opinion one way or another about the
likelihood of being sued. I always tell wedding videographers this: It's a
business risk. The downside of being a defendant is a huge expenditure for
defense which, if unsuccessful, can also mean extensive civil liability. I
don't evaluate business risk -- that's a decision which is the perogative of
the business owner.

>
> > I haven't ventured an opinion on the likelihood of the OP being sued for
> > infringement. It may be quite low though, as you've noted, lots of
> > relatively de minimus infringers are finding themselves sued as of late.
> > The point though, isn't whether the OP will be caught (perhaps so,
perhaps
> > not), but whether what the OP proposes is legal. It isn't.
>
> Technically it isn't legal, but it's not necessarily criminal. Which puts
> it back in the civil arena.

Oh, sure. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's most likely not criminal
(though criminal defense is outside my area of expertise). However, as the
RIAA defendants are finding, even if they think they have a valid fair use
defense (and they might), in fact, even if they're completely innocent, it's
a lot cheaper to settle for $5,000 than to pay the $100,000 plus it takes to
defend an infringement action in federal court. And, of course, if they
should lose, they're looking at potential civil liability up to $150,000,
plus potential liability for the plaintiff's attorneys fees.

>
>
>
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 1:34:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> > I haven't ventured an opinion on the likelihood of the OP being sued
for
> > infringement. It may be quite low though, as you've noted, lots of
> > relatively de minimus infringers are finding themselves sued as of
late.
> > The point though, isn't whether the OP will be caught (perhaps so,
perhaps
> > not), but whether what the OP proposes is legal. It isn't.
>
> Technically it isn't legal, but it's not necessarily criminal. Which
puts
> it back in the civil arena.


You may not know, then again you may, that you're trying to give a legal
opinion to an attorney. PTRAVEL recently participated in a thread I was
involved in and gave some very succinct and valuable opinions on this
subject. While I agree that the chance of lawsuits happening for this
type of activity is quite small, it is nevertheless possible. It will be
interesting if it happens because as I understand it, the concept of
"fair use" hasn't been tested in an actual court case.
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 1:46:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"James McIninch" <james.mcininch@comcast.net.spam> wrote in message
news:f5ylc.22081$0H1.2132413@attbi_s54...
> Laugh while you can, monkey boy. People have been sued into the poor-house
> for a lot less lately. The RIAA is quite serious about these things. So
> much so, they got congress to make just this sort of thing a felony
> ($100,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison for copying a single song off a
> CD into your home video).

You should really check your facts before posting.

I'll make it easy for you...

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

Quote:

(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully
either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means,
during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more
copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States
Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or
distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to
establish willful infringement.


So yes if that "single song off a CD" is worth more than $1000, *AND* you
don't own the original then you may be criminally liable.

>
> "It's for fun," is even less of a defense than the old "it's fair use". At
> least "fair use" used to be a valid defense (and it still is, so long as
we
> aren't talking a digital copy).

You should really check your facts before posting. Fair use is still a
valid consideration under DMCA.

> There have already been several people picked up for a single
"infraction".

Got a link to substantiate this? How do you define a "single infraction"?
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 1:46:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"FLY135" <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote in message
news:i5zlc.3669$8S1.2289@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>

<snip>

> You should really check your facts before posting. Fair use is still a
> valid consideration under DMCA.

You're absolutely right, to the extent that DMCA has language which
specifically says that it doesn't eliminate or circumvent fair use. The
problem is, the DMCA also makes the act of bypassing copy protection
illegal, i.e. making the copy may still be fair use, but how can you make
the copy if the law precludes getting around the copy protection? I'm also
convinced that (1) the DMCA is contradicted by the AHRA, and (2) it's
probably unconstitutional.

From what I've heard, Congress is attempting to remedy the DMCA by
redrafting parts, but the law that's on the books is, at least, ambiguous.


>
> > There have already been several people picked up for a single
> "infraction".
>
> Got a link to substantiate this? How do you define a "single infraction"?
>
>
May 4, 2004 4:03:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c76i5d$ab26$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:SEE-SIGFILE-0305041829460001@192.168.1.100...
> > In article <c76bvb$a7bn$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>, "PTRAVEL"
> > <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > There have already been several people picked up for a single
> > > "infraction"... so far everybody
> > > > that's been asked to has ponied up $3000 - $5000 to the MPAA to get
> them
> > > > off their back....
> > >
> > > $5,000 is a bargain compared to the minimum 6 figures it takes to
> > > competently defend an infringement action.
> >
> > But somewhat expensive compared to the $25 it would cost to license a
cue
> > from a site like SoundDogs.com, or the $75 to get a complete CD of
sports
> > rock from a buyout music library.
>
> Quite so, and that's what I recommend to commercial videographers:
buy-outs
> or royalty free libraries. I used SmartSounds for my commercial videos.

Along that line - has anyone put together some sort of licensing program for
using commercial music in event videos? Does anyone even know what that
would take to accomplish?
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 8:22:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Kelvin" <h2oski64@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a702aa1.0405031812.15040ec3@posting.google.com...
> Try www.freeplaymusic.com
>
> They have several CDs of Sports Highlights music that can be
> downloaded and its royalty free for non-commercial uses. I used some
> of the selections last year for a soccer highlight video and it worked
> really well.

Freeplaymusic has some great music. However, the license doesn't cover this
kind of use -- it's only for broadcast applications. They make their money
by collecting from ASCAP and BMI.

I know some people who have been trying to persuade the freeplay folks to
offer a buy-out license. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't done so
(though I'd sure like to know if they have).


>
> "rqo" <safetyo@nospambellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<k9wlc.66011$Uz1.32790@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
> > If it was me, I'd dump the Tina Turner...for the young boys you need to
go
> > with ROCK, like they do on ESPN highlights. Fast paced, shows action,
no
> > words to try an listen too. Nothing sappy. Your music tastes are not
> > theirs, trust me.
> >
> > http://www.superexoticar.com/images/Take_Two_2.wmv
> >
> > rqo
> >
> > "Ann" <almacmil@is.dal.ca> wrote in message
news:c761qv$ccs$1@News.Dal.Ca...
> > > We are making a 3min video of a boys hockey team. It is for fun and
maybe
> > > get them motivated. Highlights of goals, off ice traing etc. Any
> > > suggestions for good background music. We already have Tina Turners
simply
> > > the best.
> > >
> > > thanks for any ideas
> > >
> > >
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 11:18:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Use music from the forno industry. Lots of pucks there.
"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7664a$75ka$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Ann" <almacmil@is.dal.ca> wrote in message
news:c761qv$ccs$1@News.Dal.Ca...
> > We are making a 3min video of a boys hockey team. It is for fun and
maybe
> > get them motivated. Highlights of goals, off ice traing etc. Any
> > suggestions for good background music. We already have Tina Turners
simply
> > the best.
>
> Then you've already committed copyright infringement. "It's for fun," is
not
> a defense to infringement.
>
> >
> > thanks for any ideas
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 2:32:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

> Isn't there already a pretty large organization of wedding
> videographers? I think it would be a great idea for this association
> to raise some money to hire someone to go to Washington and start
> talking to some congressional representatives about revising the law.
> Hold a press conference. Approach the RIAA and demand negotiations on
> a reasonable (and we define "reasonable") compromise. Hold another
> press conference. Present the issues carefully and clearly. Get
> Heather Graham to be our spokesperson. Hold an event-- 4000 wedding
> videographers all taping a dance to "Unchained Melody" at the same
> time, illegally, in protest (go ahead-- arrest all of us!) Etc. Etc.
>
> Then it would be incumbent upon the association to get expert help in
> drafting some kind of legislation that would solve the problem.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is probably not really a matter of money. I
> would think that the RIAA might reasonably be willing to license the
> use of commercial recordings for a wedding if, for example, the bride
> and groom owned a copy of the original disk or a licensed download of
> that song. But how to do it in a cost effective way? The Association
> could offer to act as clearing house and to pay a negotiated flat rate
> to the RIAA on behalf of all it's members, and to documents which
> songs are used etc. I'm just thinking aloud here.
>
> I imagine the main impediment is bureaucratic rather than legal, and
> that the right actions might achieve some results.
>
> We all need a bit of the old "I'm madder than hell and I'm not taking
> it anymore..." attitude.
>
> Back in Kansas: on the other hand, I don't believe the RIAA is a
> "reasonable" organization, but I'd love to have them prove me wrong.
> And you may need to make a big fat donation to someone's re-election
> campaign to get the attention of a legislator.
>
>

You bring up some good points but let me play "devil's advocate" for a
second.

Would you give the bride and groom a license to freely use your video in
other productions, to copy as they see fit with no further compensation
to you?

Don't get me wrong, I dislike the RIAA as much as anyone, it's just that
I don't see any logic in your argument.

But I agree with you on the campaign contribution bit. If you open some
of the original Word documents that went into making most of the recent
copyright legislation, you'll see they were actually authored directly
by the RIAA/MPAA, not the senators on their payroll. This was covered
recently on Slashdot.

~Keith
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 2:42:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Bill Van Dyk" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
news:4097D0B3.1000608@christian-horizons.org...
> Isn't there already a pretty large organization of wedding
> videographers? I think it would be a great idea for this association to
> raise some money to hire someone to go to Washington and start talking
> to some congressional representatives about revising the law. Hold a
> press conference. Approach the RIAA and demand negotiations on a
> reasonable (and we define "reasonable") compromise. Hold another press
> conference. Present the issues carefully and clearly. Get Heather
> Graham to be our spokesperson. Hold an event-- 4000 wedding
> videographers all taping a dance to "Unchained Melody" at the same time,
> illegally, in protest (go ahead-- arrest all of us!) Etc. Etc.

I think this is a terrific idea. If I recall correctly, the wedding
videographers association is WEVA. I've long suggested that they lobby for
a compulsory license for limited commercial event videography.


>
> Then it would be incumbent upon the association to get expert help in
> drafting some kind of legislation that would solve the problem.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is probably not really a matter of money. I
> would think that the RIAA might reasonably be willing to license the use
> of commercial recordings for a wedding if, for example, the bride and
> groom owned a copy of the original disk or a licensed download of that
> song. But how to do it in a cost effective way? The Association could
> offer to act as clearing house and to pay a negotiated flat rate to the
> RIAA on behalf of all it's members, and to documents which songs are
> used etc. I'm just thinking aloud here.
>
> I imagine the main impediment is bureaucratic rather than legal, and
> that the right actions might achieve some results.
>
> We all need a bit of the old "I'm madder than hell and I'm not taking it
> anymore..." attitude.
>
> Back in Kansas: on the other hand, I don't believe the RIAA is a
> "reasonable" organization, but I'd love to have them prove me wrong.
> And you may need to make a big fat donation to someone's re-election
> campaign to get the attention of a legislator.
>
> "Money doesn't talk, it swears."
> Bob Dylan.
>
>
> Tony wrote:
>
> >"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:c76i5d$ab26$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >
> >>"Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >>news:SEE-SIGFILE-0305041829460001@192.168.1.100...
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <c76bvb$a7bn$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>, "PTRAVEL"
> >>><ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>There have already been several people picked up for a single
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>"infraction"... so far everybody
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>that's been asked to has ponied up $3000 - $5000 to the MPAA to get
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>them
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>off their back....
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>$5,000 is a bargain compared to the minimum 6 figures it takes to
> >>>>competently defend an infringement action.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>But somewhat expensive compared to the $25 it would cost to license a
> >>>
> >>>
> >cue
> >
> >
> >>>from a site like SoundDogs.com, or the $75 to get a complete CD of
> >>>
> >>>
> >sports
> >
> >
> >>>rock from a buyout music library.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Quite so, and that's what I recommend to commercial videographers:
> >>
> >>
> >buy-outs
> >
> >
> >>or royalty free libraries. I used SmartSounds for my commercial videos.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Along that line - has anyone put together some sort of licensing program
for
> >using commercial music in event videos? Does anyone even know what that
> >would take to accomplish?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 6:15:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:109eg2hg4hl6217@corp.supernews.com...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c76i5d$ab26$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:SEE-SIGFILE-0305041829460001@192.168.1.100...
> > > In article <c76bvb$a7bn$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>, "PTRAVEL"
> > > <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > There have already been several people picked up for a single
> > > > "infraction"... so far everybody
> > > > > that's been asked to has ponied up $3000 - $5000 to the MPAA to
get
> > them
> > > > > off their back....
> > > >
> > > > $5,000 is a bargain compared to the minimum 6 figures it takes to
> > > > competently defend an infringement action.
> > >
> > > But somewhat expensive compared to the $25 it would cost to license a
> cue
> > > from a site like SoundDogs.com, or the $75 to get a complete CD of
> sports
> > > rock from a buyout music library.
> >
> > Quite so, and that's what I recommend to commercial videographers:
> buy-outs
> > or royalty free libraries. I used SmartSounds for my commercial videos.
>
> Along that line - has anyone put together some sort of licensing program
for
> using commercial music in event videos? Does anyone even know what that
> would take to accomplish?

I've spoken with BMI's chief counsel about this on an informal basis --
specifically, I suggested a license for wedding videographers.
Unfortunately, there was little interest in the proposal -- BMI's counsel
didn't think there was a sufficient amount of money in it for BMI and the
composers it represents to justify the infrastructure needed to administer
it.


>
>
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 6:15:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <nANlc.60002$9z6.11696@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>, "PTRAVEL"
<ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote:
> > Along that line - has anyone put together some sort of licensing program
> for
> > using commercial music in event videos? Does anyone even know what that
> > would take to accomplish?
>
> I've spoken with BMI's chief counsel about this on an informal basis --
> specifically, I suggested a license for wedding videographers.
> Unfortunately, there was little interest in the proposal -- BMI's counsel
> didn't think there was a sufficient amount of money in it for BMI and the
> composers it represents to justify the infrastructure needed to administer
> it.

Why should they? Event videos are commonly sold as a memento for home
viewing, so performance rights wouldn't even apply in most cases.

Harry Fox, on the other hand, specifically got out of handling sync rights
for event and other small scale producers because it wasn't worth their
effort.

---

For those following this thread who aren't sure what we're talking about,
the bottom line is that even though you might think putting some pop
recording into your film would be good for the musicians and record
company, AND you're willing to pay for it, it can still be next to
impossible to do so without fear of being sued. They just don't care.

For a basic explanation of the rights and what Fair Use means:
http://dv.com/columns/columns_item.jhtml?category=Audio...

For a follow-up on how you may be able to get rights for an indie film at
reasonable cost, scroll to the bottom of:
http://dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?LookupId=/xm...

(Free, non-spamming registration required.)

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 7:05:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <4097D395.C7377092@hotmail.com>, clarkphotography@hotmail.com wrote:

> ... let me play "devil's advocate" for a
> second.
>
> Would you give the bride and groom a license to freely use your video in
> other productions, to copy as they see fit with no further compensation
> to you?

Sure. That's pretty standard in a lot of things: corporate videos, buyout
music, freelance journalism, -anything- you produce for the US
Government...

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 7:05:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Jay Rose CAS wrote:

> In article <4097D395.C7377092@hotmail.com>, clarkphotography@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > ... let me play "devil's advocate" for a
> > second.
> >
> > Would you give the bride and groom a license to freely use your video in
> > other productions, to copy as they see fit with no further compensation
> > to you?
>
> Sure. That's pretty standard in a lot of things: corporate videos, buyout
> music, freelance journalism, -anything- you produce for the US
> Government...
>

OK. I'm coming from a "still" background where photographers seems to depend on
reprint orders. I guess things are changing.

BTW, keep writing those great articles.
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 7:14:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Yes. Do you really think we're going to have a problem with brides and
grooms running around copying their wedding video for other people?

I suppose you might look at this as an opportunity to charge the couple
very large sums for additional copies of the video.

Some people won't like this, but I think that over the long run (and the
short run), it will make more sense for wedding videographers to price
their work on the basis of time and effort involved, not proprietary
ownership of any video they may have shot.

You could start a battle to prevent married couples from burning extra
copies of the DVD of their wedding that you gave them. You could-- and
you would end up looking greedy, like the RIAA and MPAA. And you
wouldn't be able to stop most people from doing it anyway.

Why not go with the flow? Tell the couple that you are charging them
for your expertise, your work, and your skill.

I am pretty sure that any money you lose on not being able to squeeze
them for extra copies will be made up for in goodwill, referrals, and
the reputation of the entire industry.

I think the film industry is not only greedy but working against their
own self-interest. I predict that eventually they will price movies at
about $10.00 each per DVD and they will discover that only a harmless
minority of users have the time, inclination, or skill to bother
downloading and copying movies.

Some "genius" will finally realize that they should not only leave
downloading alone-- they should set up web sites and provide users with
free downloadable copies of most of the movies in their catalogues.
They might be shocked to discover that Google-- a mere portal-- is
suddenly worth $40 billion. And Google doesn't own a single piece of
music or film.

Did you know that when you download the "trial version" of one of the
most powerful databases in the world-- Oracle-- you are actually
downloading a fully functional, fully operational database server? You
could install it at any company and run it for as long as you like.
Oracle doesn't care. They figure that any reputable company will
eventually buy it if they like it anyway. In the meantime, a lot of
developers are learning how to use it, and support it, and recommend it
to their employers.

This is the new reality of the internet / computer age. We should all
grow up and stop whining, for heaven's sake.

Keith Clark wrote:

>Would you give the bride and groom a license to freely use your video in
>other productions, to copy as they see fit with no further compensation
>to you?
>
>Don't get me wrong, I dislike the RIAA as much as anyone, it's just that
>I don't see any logic in your argument.
>
>But I agree with you on the campaign contribution bit. If you open some
>of the original Word documents that went into making most of the recent
>copyright legislation, you'll see they were actually authored directly
>by the RIAA/MPAA, not the senators on their payroll. This was covered
>recently on Slashdot.
>
>~Keith
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 7:14:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

> Yes. Do you really think we're going to have a problem with brides and
> grooms running around copying their wedding video for other people?
>
> I suppose you might look at this as an opportunity to charge the couple
> very large sums for additional copies of the video.
>
> Some people won't like this, but I think that over the long run (and the
> short run), it will make more sense for wedding videographers to price
> their work on the basis of time and effort involved, not proprietary
> ownership of any video they may have shot.
>
> You could start a battle to prevent married couples from burning extra
> copies of the DVD of their wedding that you gave them. You could-- and
> you would end up looking greedy, like the RIAA and MPAA. And you
> wouldn't be able to stop most people from doing it anyway.
>
> Why not go with the flow? Tell the couple that you are charging them
> for your expertise, your work, and your skill.
>
> I am pretty sure that any money you lose on not being able to squeeze
> them for extra copies will be made up for in goodwill, referrals, and
> the reputation of the entire industry.
>
> I think the film industry is not only greedy but working against their
> own self-interest. I predict that eventually they will price movies at
> about $10.00 each per DVD and they will discover that only a harmless
> minority of users have the time, inclination, or skill to bother
> downloading and copying movies.
>
> Some "genius" will finally realize that they should not only leave
> downloading alone-- they should set up web sites and provide users with
> free downloadable copies of most of the movies in their catalogues.
> They might be shocked to discover that Google-- a mere portal-- is
> suddenly worth $40 billion. And Google doesn't own a single piece of
> music or film.
>
> Did you know that when you download the "trial version" of one of the
> most powerful databases in the world-- Oracle-- you are actually
> downloading a fully functional, fully operational database server? You
> could install it at any company and run it for as long as you like.
> Oracle doesn't care. They figure that any reputable company will
> eventually buy it if they like it anyway. In the meantime, a lot of
> developers are learning how to use it, and support it, and recommend it
> to their employers.
>
> This is the new reality of the internet / computer age. We should all
> grow up and stop whining, for heaven's sake.
>

OK. Well, it seemed like a legitimate question.

By the way, most people here frown on top-posting when replying. Just a word
to the wise...
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 10:00:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote
> > Along that line - has anyone put together some sort of licensing program
> for
> > using commercial music in event videos? Does anyone even know what that
> > would take to accomplish?
>
> I've spoken with BMI's chief counsel about this on an informal basis --
> specifically, I suggested a license for wedding videographers.
> Unfortunately, there was little interest in the proposal -- BMI's counsel
> didn't think there was a sufficient amount of money in it for BMI and the
> composers it represents to justify the infrastructure needed to administer
> it.


Doesn't England or Australia already have something like that in place?
Seems to me that this has been posted here before - and the fees were very
reasonable.
Hopefully someone who does know will chime in.

Mike
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 10:00:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:c793s5$17cgb$2@ID-113661.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote
> > > Along that line - has anyone put together some sort of licensing
program
> > for
> > > using commercial music in event videos? Does anyone even know what
that
> > > would take to accomplish?
> >
> > I've spoken with BMI's chief counsel about this on an informal basis --
> > specifically, I suggested a license for wedding videographers.
> > Unfortunately, there was little interest in the proposal -- BMI's
counsel
> > didn't think there was a sufficient amount of money in it for BMI and
the
> > composers it represents to justify the infrastructure needed to
administer
> > it.
>
>
> Doesn't England or Australia already have something like that in place?
> Seems to me that this has been posted here before - and the fees were very
> reasonable.
> Hopefully someone who does know will chime in.

I recall hearing the same thing. Unfortunately, I don't know the details.

>
> Mike
>
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 2:05:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40980519.96C41AFB@hotmail.com...
>
> OK. I'm coming from a "still" background where photographers seems to
depend on
> reprint orders. I guess things are changing.
>
Some still photogs try to get it both ways.

They charge the client to do the shoot, which presumably pays for
their time and materials, then they have the nerve to hold the film
you just paid for and charge you high rates for prints. Seems
to me they should get paid for one or the other, but not for both.

David
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 1:32:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Okay-- I'm open minded. I've seen a number of notes and it baffles me.
Isn't it easier to follow a thread if people top-post? I don't need to
reread the previous messages over and over again when reading the
"dialogue". I don't get the advantage of bottom-posting, which forces
you to cursor down to the end of every message to read the new content.
Is it really preferred by a majority here?

Keith Clark wrote:

>By the way, most people here frown on top-posting when replying. Just a word
>to the wise...
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 6:10:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Bill Van Dyk" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
news:4098ECD5.1020902@christian-horizons.org...
> Okay-- I'm open minded. I've seen a number of notes and it baffles me.
> Isn't it easier to follow a thread if people top-post? I don't need to
> reread the previous messages over and over again when reading the
> "dialogue". I don't get the advantage of bottom-posting, which forces
> you to cursor down to the end of every message to read the new content.
> Is it really preferred by a majority here?

The problem with many bottom posting advocates is that they commit an even
more serious offense that totally works against the bottom posting ideology
that they evangalize. That is... the don't bother to snip and quote only
the relevant points that they are responding to. So you sometimes get pages
of quoted previous posts and a one line response. This IMO is far worse
than any top posting offense. So as long as these people remain
unenlightened as to the hypocrisy of their posting etiquette soapbox, they
will foster the incorrigible will of the top posting masses.
!