HNIC Theme to be dropped aka "The day the music died "

[Mags]

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.

[Mr. Analog]

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...

[Mags]

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.

[Mags]

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).

[Thorin]

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.

"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.

[Mags]

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.

"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.

[Mr. Analog]

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).

[Darren Dirt]

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.

:sigh:

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!*






*oops, now I owe Trump royalties don't I?

[Mags]

I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse here, but ran across this take on the situation and made me giggle.

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/

[Mr. Analog]

I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse here, but ran across this take on the situation and made me giggle.

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.

[Darren Dirt]

on the subject of hockey traditions and ridiculousness...

Rick Mercer: "What the hell happened to hockey?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcj7dH2rSHA

[Lazybones]

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.