QuoteTORONTO -- The famous Hockey Night in Canada theme that has introduced thousands of great games over the years may not be heard again when the puck drops next season.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2008/06/05/cbc_hockey_theme/
I am stunned, it was bad enough when they did the rearrangement in the 80s and then again in the 90s. This is a crazy, stupid, committee cluster-@%&# decision.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/05/hockeysong.html
A sad day yesterday was then, as sad day indeed!
from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/05/hockeysong.html
Quote
'I think it would be foolish of the CBC not to bring back that theme. It is, at this time, probably the most recognizable theme in all of Canada. '
--Rob Griff
Add your comment
true dat!
Quote
The CBC "has advised the composer, owner and administrator of the musical composition that it is not prepared to enter into a new licence agreement with respect to the use of the theme," the release says.
...Copyright Music & Visuals says it had offered the CBC a chance to renew its licence to use her song on terms that were "virtually identical to those that have existed for the past decade." Each use of the song in the past has cost the broadcaster about $500, the company says.
cheap bastards!
Quote from: Melbosa on June 05, 2008, 01:09:48 PM
A sad day yesterday was then, as sad day indeed!
Why? How much $$ did you have riding on Crosby & Co.?
No money, just wanted PP to go to 7 games.
Quote from: Melbosa on June 05, 2008, 02:41:54 PM
No money, just wanted PP to go to 7 games.
I'm surprised they made it past 4... the Penguins were just not ready for playoffs... :(
Well, the intense action in games 5 and 6 made it *feel* like a full series ;)
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 06, 2008, 09:44:28 AM
Well, the intense action in games 5 and 6 made it *feel* like a full series ;)
I dunno, the Penguins
played hard but didn't get too far...
Sorta like a caveman doing differential equations, they made a good effort but they had no hope of succeeding.
P.S. Detroit fan here :P
Well, CTV owns it now:
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=240196&lid=headline&lpos=topStory_nhl
QuoteCTV Inc., together with Copyright Music & Visuals, today announced that CTV Inc. has acquired all rights to 'The Hockey Theme' in perpetuity, preserving the song's legacy and ensuring it will be heard on national television for years to come. 'The Hockey Theme' song will now live on CTV Inc. properties TSN, RDS and across Canada on CTV during coverage of the upcoming Vancouver 2010 Olympics as outlined below.
The CBC has just shot itself in the foot. Hah. Not only don't they have the full rights to NHL broadcasts, they lost the theme song forever! Now theres nothing really to keep people from trying to get a away from Cherry.
Quote from: Tom on June 09, 2008, 04:27:32 PM
The CBC has just shot itself in the foot. Hah. Not only don't they have the full rights to NHL broadcasts, they lost the theme song forever! Now theres nothing really to keep people from trying to get a away from Cherry.
What pisses me off is that CB-frickin-C couldn't even get off their asses and make sure the CANADIAN customers of crApple's iTunes store would get the CBC VERSION of the Cup games... My son had a few bucks left over on his $20 card so I pointed out the Stanley Cup icon, noticed the finals were $1.99 per game, and game #5 was 3.5 hours for the same price (with all dem OTs) so he grabbed it. 4GB download or something, we start to watch it, I notice a...
...wait for it...
*NBC* logo in the corner.
And here I was suggesting he grab it since it would be one of the last times we could hear the HNIC theme >:(
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 06, 2008, 09:44:28 AM
Well, the intense action in games 5 and 6 made it *feel* like a full series ;)
:sigh:
PS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_Night_in_Canada#Theme_music
Quote
In the early evening of June 6 the CBC announced it could not reach an acceptable agreement to renew its license, and would proceed with a contest for a new theme in collaboration with music label Nettwerk, with the winner receiving $100,000 (the CBC would presumably have full ownership of the theme thereafter).
The CBC said it had offered nearly $1 million for perpetual rights to the piece, but that Copyright Music was asking for $2.5 to $3 million for those rights. On June 9, 2008, CTV announced that it had purchased the perpetual rights to the song and would use them for hockey broadcasts on its TSN and RDS sports channels.
Anyone else think that's a raw deal for the New Theme composer, and kinda cheapo that CBC *was* paying $500 a pop before, and turned down a deal that was only triple the small amount they initially were offering Copyright Music?? I mean, 1 bill divided by 500 = 2000 plays of the tune, so 3million is still only 6000 or so... That seems pretty damn reasonable! wp, TSN. gg, CBC -- u loose.
Whoever the new theme writer ends up as he's gonna lose all the rights to it (as I'm sure CBC will want to retain full ownership).
Yet another CBC cluster@%&#, way to go team!
Is there any way I can opt my tax dollars out of that clown farm?
I read today (try and find the link again) that CBC may not be totally at fault here. Apparently they were willing to pay the woman who composed the song a substantial sum, but the woman wanted 40 years of residuals even though that was never in the original contract.
I also think CTV is throwing money away here, since the song and CBC are so intertwined, they come off looking opportunistic and greedy. And probably won't work for them anyways.
The publicized amounts were
$500/usage was the current royalty they had been doing forever
$1million flat buyout was what CBC offered her (them, technically, it was a company representing her)
$2-4million was what they were counter-offering from CBC to accept a buyout
...you gotta wonder if they woulda taken the deal if they knew CTV/TSN was also a potential buyer ;)
PS: never heard about "40 years of residuals", if you have a cited source that would be great... mkay?
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 10, 2008, 11:47:13 AM
The publicized amounts were
$500/usage was the current royalty they had been doing forever
$1million flat buyout was what CBC offered her (them, technically, it was a company representing her)
$2-4million was what they were counter-offering from CBC to accept a buyout
...you gotta wonder if they woulda taken the deal if they knew CTV/TSN was also a potential buyer ;)
PS: never heard about "40 years of residuals", if you have a cited source that would be great... mkay?
One of the sources was off Hockeybuzz.com
"CBC did the responsible thing, seeing as they are a publicly-held company. The real villain in this thing is some woman who thinks she should get paid "in perpetuity" for something she did 40 years ago."
Not the most reliable source, but still looking where else I heard that.
Quote from: Mags on June 10, 2008, 01:26:32 PM
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 10, 2008, 11:47:13 AM
The publicized amounts were
$500/usage was the current royalty they had been doing forever
$1million flat buyout was what CBC offered her (them, technically, it was a company representing her)
$2-4million was what they were counter-offering from CBC to accept a buyout
...you gotta wonder if they woulda taken the deal if they knew CTV/TSN was also a potential buyer ;)
PS: never heard about "40 years of residuals", if you have a cited source that would be great... mkay?
One of the sources was off Hockeybuzz.com
"CBC did the responsible thing, seeing as they are a publicly-held company. The real villain in this thing is some woman who thinks she should get paid "in perpetuity" for something she did 40 years ago."
Not the most reliable source, but still looking where else I heard that.
I would rather vilify arcane Copyright laws that give her
the right to profit off of something from 40 years ago...
So according to sources I read, the deal was similar to what Darren quoted. The counter-offer was 3-6 mil depending on who you listen to. But, from everything I read she has been getting the $500/game for the full 40 years which works out to aprox $65,000/year. Can you imagine $65 grand a year for a 30 second jingle. Now imagine that same sum 40 years ago. And now her lawyers bawk at a 1 million dollar bonus. I think someone needs a smack with the reality bat.
Her lawyers claim that that amount is seriously undervalued according to songwriter standard fees. Man I wonder why everyone hates the music industry so much.....
Edit: In the interests of trying to get the truth of this. Her lawyers claim she has only received $500 per for the last 10 years. Assuming there was a small raise at that time. Course they also claim to be fighting the CBC for nearly that long.. soo...
Still think my argument holds up though.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 10, 2008, 01:40:14 PM
Quote from: Mags on June 10, 2008, 01:26:32 PM
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 10, 2008, 11:47:13 AM
The publicized amounts were
$500/usage was the current royalty they had been doing forever
$1million flat buyout was what CBC offered her (them, technically, it was a company representing her)
$2-4million was what they were counter-offering from CBC to accept a buyout
...you gotta wonder if they woulda taken the deal if they knew CTV/TSN was also a potential buyer ;)
PS: never heard about "40 years of residuals", if you have a cited source that would be great... mkay?
One of the sources was off Hockeybuzz.com
"CBC did the responsible thing, seeing as they are a publicly-held company. The real villain in this thing is some woman who thinks she should get paid "in perpetuity" for something she did 40 years ago."
Not the most reliable source, but still looking where else I heard that.
I would rather vilify arcane Copyright laws that give her the right to profit off of something from 40 years ago...
Yeah, I agree. I still gets my stomach in knots that people have to pay to use the "Happy Birthday" song now... Seriously greedy pukes in this world.
Can you imagine if coding worked like the music industry. Every bit of code you wrote would be your intellectual property and you would get payed every time it is used (sounds great at first). But then you would have to pay Microsoft (assuming for this argument you are using Microsoft tools) for the intellectual rights of the tools you are using (each and every one). Who in turn would have to pay the person who invented the language you are using. Who would then pay the person who invented the previous level of language, all the way down to the person who wrote assembler. Who would have to pay the person who developed binary. Who would have to pay the person who developed math. Who would have to pay the person who developed language...... (sure i missed a few in there).
Quote from: Mags on June 10, 2008, 10:29:31 AM
I read today (try and find the link again) that CBC may not be totally at fault here. Apparently they were willing to pay the woman who composed the song a substantial sum, but the woman wanted 40 years of residuals even though that was never in the original contract.
Quote from: Mags on June 10, 2008, 01:26:32 PM
"CBC did the responsible thing, seeing as they are a publicly-held company. The real villain in this thing is some woman who thinks she should get paid "in perpetuity" for something she did 40 years ago."
I think you're using the terms "residuals" and "in perpetuity" exactly the wrong way around here.
Residuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual_%28entertainment_industry%29) are payments for re-broadcasting the song/tv show. She'd been getting residuals from the song for the last 40 years, but was trying to sell the perpetual rights to the song (and thus the ability to get residual payments) for a single amount.
"In Perpetuity" means "forever" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+perpetuity). She was trying to sell her rights to near-perpetual residuals, while CBC/CTV were looking to purchase perpetual rights to the song. As in, they wanted to ensure they could play it whenever they want without having to ask anymore or pay per play.
I agree with Mr. Analog, copyright laws give artists way too long of a protective period before their work becomes public domain.
Quote from: Thorin on June 10, 2008, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: Mags on June 10, 2008, 10:29:31 AM
I read today (try and find the link again) that CBC may not be totally at fault here. Apparently they were willing to pay the woman who composed the song a substantial sum, but the woman wanted 40 years of residuals even though that was never in the original contract.
Quote from: Mags on June 10, 2008, 01:26:32 PM
"CBC did the responsible thing, seeing as they are a publicly-held company. The real villain in this thing is some woman who thinks she should get paid "in perpetuity" for something she did 40 years ago."
I think you're using the terms "residuals" and "in perpetuity" exactly the wrong way around here.
Residuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual_%28entertainment_industry%29) are payments for re-broadcasting the song/tv show. She'd been getting residuals from the song for the last 40 years, but was trying to sell the perpetual rights to the song (and thus the ability to get residual payments) for a single amount.
"In Perpetuity" means "forever" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+perpetuity). She was trying to sell her rights to near-perpetual residuals, while CBC/CTV were looking to purchase perpetual rights to the song. As in, they wanted to ensure they could play it whenever they want without having to ask anymore or pay per play.
I agree with Mr. Analog, copyright laws give artists way too long of a protective period before their work becomes public domain.
The jist of the article was that she want to be compensated in Perpetuity. I.E. since she first created the song all the way till the next negotiation, with the language protecting her indefinitely. I.E. "FOREVER". But that was just what the article stated, who knows what the real truth is at this point.
Just FYI, most Microsoft developer tools are proprietary and require licensing.
Look at the mess with the LZW patent and GIF. Ultimately it lead to the development of PNG simply to avoid all the legal insanity boiling between Unisys and rest of the universe when they changed their licensing in the late 90s.
I'm no stranger to theft of work AND thinking about rights management. Lots of people steal my artwork off of dA and elsewhere and repost it. Most of my stuff is fan art (therefore I have no copyright claim) but my original stuff I usually distribute under GPL because I'd rather make money off what I can do (new commission work, etc) rather than what I did (previous works).
Quote from: Mags on June 10, 2008, 01:56:34 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 10, 2008, 01:40:14 PM
I would rather vilify arcane Copyright laws that give her the right to profit off of something from 40 years ago...
Yeah, I agree. I still gets my stomach in knots that people have to pay to use the "Happy Birthday" song now... Seriously greedy pukes in this world.
(http://www.savagechickens.com/images/chickennostalgic.jpg) (http://www.savagechickens.com/blog/2008/04/good-times.html)
:sigh:
Quote
Can you imagine if coding worked like the music industry. Every bit of code you wrote would be your intellectual property and you would get payed every time it is used (sounds great at first). But then you would have to pay Microsoft (assuming for this argument you are using Microsoft tools) for the intellectual rights of the tools you are using (each and every one). Who in turn would have to pay the person who invented the language you are using. Who would then pay the person who invented the previous level of language, all the way down to the person who wrote assembler. Who would have to pay the person who developed binary. Who would have to pay the person who developed math. Who would have to pay the person who developed language...... (sure i missed a few in there).
Copyright Law: YOU'RE FIRED! (http://images.google.com/images?q=you're%20fired&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)*
*oops, now I owe Trump royalties don't I? ;)
I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse here, but ran across this take on the situation and made me giggle.
Quote
So, it appears that CTV has gone ahead and bought the rights to "The Hockey Song" up until this point known (and only known) as the theme to Hockey Night in Canada. CTV Spokesman Rick Brace had this to say:
"It is an iconic tune, embraced by Canadians everywhere, and we felt it was imperative to save it." (Emphasis mine)
Right, of course: gigantic media conglomerations are always worried about preserving national icons. Thank you, Rick Brace, and thank the good folks at CTV for giving in to the demands of a borderline extortionist who is evidently labouring under the impression that "jingle writer" is anything other than a pseudonym for "failed musician."
http://coveredinoil.blogspot.com/
Quote from: Mags on June 12, 2008, 06:59:55 AM
I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse here, but ran across this take on the situation and made me giggle.
Quote
So, it appears that CTV has gone ahead and bought the rights to "The Hockey Song" up until this point known (and only known) as the theme to Hockey Night in Canada. CTV Spokesman Rick Brace had this to say:
"It is an iconic tune, embraced by Canadians everywhere, and we felt it was imperative to save it." (Emphasis mine)
Right, of course: gigantic media conglomerations are always worried about preserving national icons. Thank you, Rick Brace, and thank the good folks at CTV for giving in to the demands of a borderline extortionist who is evidently labouring under the impression that "jingle writer" is anything other than a pseudonym for "failed musician."
http://coveredinoil.blogspot.com/
LOL excellent response hah.
on the subject of hockey traditions and ridiculousness...
Rick Mercer: "What the hell happened to hockey?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcj7dH2rSHA
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 20, 2008, 12:06:41 PM
on the subject of hockey traditions and ridiculousness...
Rick Mercer: "What the hell happened to hockey?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcj7dH2rSHA
That was right on the money.