Company's TV - Show your own stuff during commercials?
-
@Dashrender said:
Even with those models... they are clearly making enough money - because they are spending TONS making their own series.. so I'm not that worried about Netflix.
Marco Polo especially. $90 million for season one. $9 million per episode.
-
@Dashrender said:
Even with those models... they are clearly making enough money - because they are spending TONS making their own series.. so I'm not that worried about Netflix.
This whole thread makes me laugh, as I'm not worried about any of the entertainment industry's profitability. I'll continue to not follow all these rules and regulations mentioned above, thanks.
-
It would be interesting to see a change in Netflix billing based on how much you watch. But a flat $10 for unlimited is really hard to justify going to a per view system.
I could see it now - $0.10 a show, $0.15 for a movie, I'm not sure if I'd get over the $10 a month - could be close... I put re-runs on in the background when I'm working or surfing the web.
-
@RojoLoco said:
@Dashrender said:
Even with those models... they are clearly making enough money - because they are spending TONS making their own series.. so I'm not that worried about Netflix.
This whole thread makes me laugh, as I'm not worried about any of the entertainment industry's profitability. I'll continue to not follow all these rules and regulations mentioned above, thanks.
I'm of the opinion that I can make that decision for myself but not for my company. I have to present the information to them and they make their choice.
-
@RojoLoco said:
@Dashrender said:
Even with those models... they are clearly making enough money - because they are spending TONS making their own series.. so I'm not that worried about Netflix.
This whole thread makes me laugh, as I'm not worried about any of the entertainment industry's profitability. I'll continue to not follow all these rules and regulations mentioned above, thanks.
It's people's lively hoods at stake, when you avoid it the guy that was on set making $30,000/year or less hurts the most. Next time they won't pay him. There is actually not that much money in it for the people actually doing the work so any you steal from them hurts them a lot (and yes it is stealing).
-
@RojoLoco said:
@Dashrender said:
Even with those models... they are clearly making enough money - because they are spending TONS making their own series.. so I'm not that worried about Netflix.
This whole thread makes me laugh, as I'm not worried about any of the entertainment industry's profitability. I'll continue to not follow all these rules and regulations mentioned above, thanks.
Until your company gets audited and sued - oh.. and by the way are you completely ok with anyone and everyone just taking whatever your company does and not pay you for it?
-
@wirestyle22 said:
@RojoLoco said:
@Dashrender said:
Even with those models... they are clearly making enough money - because they are spending TONS making their own series.. so I'm not that worried about Netflix.
This whole thread makes me laugh, as I'm not worried about any of the entertainment industry's profitability. I'll continue to not follow all these rules and regulations mentioned above, thanks.
I'm of the opinion that I can make that decision for myself but not for my company. I have to present the information to them and they make their choice.
Oh sure, I'm certainly not speaking for "at the office" applications. But the discussion of all the semantics of all these laws and Ts and Cs makes me glad to retain the title of "Red Phil the Pirate"..... yarrrrr....
-
@wirestyle22 said:
@Dashrender said:
Even with those models... they are clearly making enough money - because they are spending TONS making their own series.. so I'm not that worried about Netflix.
Marco Polo especially. $90 million for season one. $9 million per episode.
One of, if not the most expensive TV show ever made
-
@wirestyle22 said:
@RojoLoco said:
@Dashrender said:
Even with those models... they are clearly making enough money - because they are spending TONS making their own series.. so I'm not that worried about Netflix.
This whole thread makes me laugh, as I'm not worried about any of the entertainment industry's profitability. I'll continue to not follow all these rules and regulations mentioned above, thanks.
I'm of the opinion that I can make that decision for myself but not for my company. I have to present the information to them and they make their choice.
Agreed - on a personal level this is one thing. But a business, especially one that makes money off someone else's stuff they stole (like Office) - no go for me.
-
@Jason said:
@wirestyle22 said:
@Dashrender said:
Even with those models... they are clearly making enough money - because they are spending TONS making their own series.. so I'm not that worried about Netflix.
Marco Polo especially. $90 million for season one. $9 million per episode.
One of, if not the most expensive TV show ever made
Holy crap. I remember when The Next Generation was record setting at $100K/episode.
-
@wirestyle22 Just deploy Apple TV's and let them Airsync their content over.
-
@Dashrender said:
@RojoLoco said:
@Dashrender said:
Even with those models... they are clearly making enough money - because they are spending TONS making their own series.. so I'm not that worried about Netflix.
This whole thread makes me laugh, as I'm not worried about any of the entertainment industry's profitability. I'll continue to not follow all these rules and regulations mentioned above, thanks.
Until your company gets audited and sued - oh.. and by the way are you completely ok with anyone and everyone just taking whatever your company does and not pay you for it?
Audited and sued for what exactly? We have neither audio nor video playing anywhere in here. And our software and hosting services would be much harder to pirate than a movie or TV show.
-
@s.hackleman said:
I'm not sure if it exists for TV, but I know you can not do this with audio legally. You can play a local radio station in your lobby for example, because that station is paying rights to that music and paying "jukebox fee's." If you buy music, and replay it in your business and you are not paying the recording industry you will get hit with a fine eventually. I have seen cigar lounges, restaurants, and retail stores all hit by people that make money on the side by collecting bounties for turning in businesses. That being said, I have never heard of it happening with television, but I am guessing it comes up in that "This broadcast can not be retransmitted with out express written consent" junk that pops up before a sporting event.
It's not retransmitted, though. It's playing it "sometimes." The same logic there would potentially say that you are not allowed to turn it off just after a show or that anyone, even people at home, cannot switch channels during commercials.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@s.hackleman said:
I'm not sure if it exists for TV, but I know you can not do this with audio legally. You can play a local radio station in your lobby for example, because that station is paying rights to that music and paying "jukebox fee's." If you buy music, and replay it in your business and you are not paying the recording industry you will get hit with a fine eventually. I have seen cigar lounges, restaurants, and retail stores all hit by people that make money on the side by collecting bounties for turning in businesses. That being said, I have never heard of it happening with television, but I am guessing it comes up in that "This broadcast can not be retransmitted with out express written consent" junk that pops up before a sporting event.
It's not retransmitted, though. It's playing it "sometimes." The same logic there would potentially say that you are not allowed to turn it off just after a show or that anyone, even people at home, cannot switch channels during commercials.
I agree, but I would argue, if I own a CD, and wanted to play it in my store, that I own, I would have the right to do that, but that isn't the case. TV shows and broadcasting are paid by commercials, and removing those commercials for your gain, while also getting the gain of the television content is likely to upset the people that provide that content. I'm just saying in the audio world they will go after people who do this, and to be aware that similar restrictions may exist for TV, however I am not sure of a specific case.
-
@s.hackleman said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@s.hackleman said:
I'm not sure if it exists for TV, but I know you can not do this with audio legally. You can play a local radio station in your lobby for example, because that station is paying rights to that music and paying "jukebox fee's." If you buy music, and replay it in your business and you are not paying the recording industry you will get hit with a fine eventually. I have seen cigar lounges, restaurants, and retail stores all hit by people that make money on the side by collecting bounties for turning in businesses. That being said, I have never heard of it happening with television, but I am guessing it comes up in that "This broadcast can not be retransmitted with out express written consent" junk that pops up before a sporting event.
It's not retransmitted, though. It's playing it "sometimes." The same logic there would potentially say that you are not allowed to turn it off just after a show or that anyone, even people at home, cannot switch channels during commercials.
I agree, but I would argue, if I own a CD, and wanted to play it in my store, that I own, I would have the right to do that, but that isn't the case. TV shows and broadcasting are paid by commercials, and removing those commercials for your gain, while also getting the gain of the television content is likely to upset the people that provide that content. I'm just saying in the audio world they will go after people who do this, and to be aware that similar restrictions may exist for TV, however I am not sure of a specific case.
The commercials are not removed, though. They something else is played at that time. It's different. Semantics, I realize, but it is very different in practice. A CD you are not licensed to perform, the radio is. It is not licensed to only be played sometimes and not others, it's just licensed. The logic that the commercials pay for it and therefore must be listened to is violated by all kinds of consumer devices, including the tuner dial itself. I would be breaking that rule by channel surfing or using one of those ad removal devices at home.
-
In the case of radio, @s-hackleman you are mistaken.
If you put a radio in the lobby and play that, you might be fine, I'm not exactly sure. But one thing you absolutely can't do is play it through a PA/overhead/Music on Hold system without paying licensing fees.
TV isn't the same, because as Scott pointed out, you're typically not rebroadcasting the TV like you would be doing with music over a PA system. So in this case it would be near the same as having a radio there.
In our case, we pay for cable TV, and something until this instant I hadn't fully thought out - I assumed the cable company was paying for any rights we might need when it comes to us playing the TV in our business.
Companies that offer streaming music often do not pay these fees (and consequently pass them along to you) because they don't want to deal with the paper work, but that doesn't absolve you from having to do so.
-
Here is a good blog article that gets into some of the specifics of licensning music/tv in the US.
-
Right now, the payments are made only for the public performance right in the underlying musical composition (otherwise known as the “musical work” – the lyrics and musical notes that make up the song). No royalty is paid by businesses to the copyright holders in the sound recordings under Federal law (but see our concerns about whether certain court rulings may cloud this conclusion when dealing with state laws and pre-1972 sound recordings, and see this article about the Register of the Copyright calling for a more general sound recording performance royalty)
If the money isn't going to the copyright holders, who is it going to? Are they sure? I thought when paying ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, that those three entities basically are representing most of the music copyright holders.. and were being paid on the back end.
-
@Dashrender said:
Right now, the payments are made only for the public performance right in the underlying musical composition (otherwise known as the “musical work” – the lyrics and musical notes that make up the song). No royalty is paid by businesses to the copyright holders in the sound recordings under Federal law (but see our concerns about whether certain court rulings may cloud this conclusion when dealing with state laws and pre-1972 sound recordings, and see this article about the Register of the Copyright calling for a more general sound recording performance royalty)
If the money isn't going to the copyright holders, who is it going to? Are they sure? I thought when paying ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, that those three entities basically are representing most of the music copyright holders.. and were being paid on the back end.
Warning! Rant Mode On
Musicians are notoriously bad at reading and understanding contracts. Those companies probably do hold the rights to stream most music, but the artists get jack. Trust me, I've seen the contracts, and told a couple of small hopeful artists that they are getting ripped off. At least the old highway robber barons would let you keep enough that you could turn a profit and provide further business. The big music labels and almost all other content management companies don't even care about getting return business.
Rant Mode Disengaged
-
@travisdh1 said:
@Dashrender said:
Right now, the payments are made only for the public performance right in the underlying musical composition (otherwise known as the “musical work” – the lyrics and musical notes that make up the song). No royalty is paid by businesses to the copyright holders in the sound recordings under Federal law (but see our concerns about whether certain court rulings may cloud this conclusion when dealing with state laws and pre-1972 sound recordings, and see this article about the Register of the Copyright calling for a more general sound recording performance royalty)
If the money isn't going to the copyright holders, who is it going to? Are they sure? I thought when paying ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, that those three entities basically are representing most of the music copyright holders.. and were being paid on the back end.
Warning! Rant Mode On
Musicians are notoriously bad at reading and understanding contracts. Those companies probably do hold the rights to stream most music, but the artists get jack. Trust me, I've seen the contracts, and told a couple of small hopeful artists that they are getting ripped off. At least the old highway robber barons would let you keep enough that you could turn a profit and provide further business. The big music labels and almost all other content management companies don't even care about getting return business.
Rant Mode Disengaged
You would think, with things like Youtube and the internet in general that artists would see this and be able to have a better situation. Hell look at the beave (ug, can't believe I went there).
