[Andre Cardinal]

Been following this story for a couple days now....

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2008/06/05/moore-hockeynight-theme.html">http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2 ... theme.html</a><!-- m -->

I can seem to understand why those in charge of these decisions are still employed by CBC?? What are they thinking?? Time for a change?? What??

[cferneyh]

Been following this story for a couple days now....

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2008/06/05/moore-hockeynight-theme.html">http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2 ... theme.html</a><!-- m -->

I can seem to understand why those in charge of these decisions are still employed by CBC?? What are they thinking?? Time for a change?? What??

I'm all for it. Especially if it means this "fresh start" also includes getting rid of Cherry, MacLean, and Cole.

And I think the Copyright Music & Visuals organization was pretty slimey in leaking the state of negotiations, knowing full well they'd get the public on their side.

But I got a good chuckle out of some of their comments.

Copyright Music & Visuals said it had offered the CBC a chance to renew its licence to use Claman's song on terms that were "virtually identical to those that have existed for the past decade."

After two years, Ciccone said the rates would rise by about 15 per cent, an increase he called an industry standard.

Well, a 15% raise isn't exactly "virtually identical", is it?

[Phantom51]

Who cares! its just a song.

[Andre Cardinal]

I read last week that Cole was broadcasting his last playoff games this year(still be a Sat. night fixture though). And Millen was going back to his old job at the Dairy Queen. These are good changes.

But....

The CBC makes these bad decisions all the time. And sometimes you need the public outcry to fix errors in judgement by people who should probably not have the power to make these decisions. Remember when they didn't want to give a contract to Ron Mclean a couple years back? Not only does he host HNIC, but he's the backbone of the Olympic coverage, awards shows. And can Don Cherry a while back as well? I know we don't all like him, but he draws.

Change is always inevitable. But the old saying is right....if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Every single Canadian recognizes that tune. You can't change the song!! Imagine if we had to listen to Nickelback every Saturday night?

[skippy the wonder dog]

And I think the Copyright Music & Visuals organization was pretty slimey in leaking the state of negotiations, knowing full well they'd get the public on their side.

Negotiations were over. The CBC imposed a Wednesday deadline to agree to a settlement on the suit, citing their need to find an alternative theme if that deadline could not be met. Not having an acceptable offer in hand, the rights holder called their bluff.

[cferneyh]

And I think the Copyright Music & Visuals organization was pretty slimey in leaking the state of negotiations, knowing full well they'd get the public on their side.

Negotiations were over. The CBC imposed a Wednesday deadline to agree to a settlement on the suit, citing their need to find an alternative theme if that deadline could not be met. Not having an acceptable offer in hand, the rights holder called their bluff.

C'mon skippy. Deadline? Right...... All parties involved knew there was no real deadline, but the CM&V decided to play slimey.

And for the record, I've got no problem with them asking for more money, but don't ask for a 15% raise and call it "virtually identical to those that have existed for the past decade".

If they want more money, I think it is totally reasonable for the CBC to want more rights.

[skippy the wonder dog]

CBC isn't asking for more rights for more money. They're asking for more rights for much, much less money.

As for them being justified in asking for more rights if they pay 15% more, that's bullshit. The value of the rights increases over time. The initial value of the song was doubtless minimal, but its long association with HNIC increases its value. Furthermore, the rights holder still needs to buy groceries and gas. If CBC wants still more rights, the answer is still more money.

That's reasonable. It's how copyright works. You pay for what you use, and the seller sets the price.

It's laughable that CBC is crying poor here. The cost of licensing the tune is a tiny fraction of what Don Cherry earns to strut his ego for the camera.

Slimy? Lowballing is slimy. Establishing insincere deadlines is slimy. Calling the fucker's bluff -- well, live by the sword, die by the sword.

[cferneyh]

Slimy? Lowballing is slimy. Establishing insincere deadlines is slimy. Calling the fucker's bluff -- well, live by the sword, die by the sword.

Low balling is part of negotiating. Imaginary deadlines are part of negotiating. But taking the negotiations outside of the negotiation room, well that's an entirely different game in my books. Is it effective? Absolutely. Would I do it if I was in their shoes? Absolutely. But that doesn't make it right.

And while I personally loathe Cherry and his shtick, there is no denying that a great proportion of HNIC viewers watch just because of Cherry. How many people watch HNIC just because of the damn theme song?

The value of the rights increases over time.

Granted. And I'm not arguing that. At least I don't think I am. The point I want to make is don't say that you are simply looking for the same thing that you've had for the last ten years, when what you are really looking for is a raise. Is it so wrong to say: "We want a 15% increase, which is an par with the industry average"? And how real is that "industry average" anyway?!?

[Lizard King]

Im a traditionalist for the most part when it comes to hockey. But maybe its high time they overhauled that whole HNIC broadcast, new faces new intermission shows and a new song..why not? Bob Cole is running on fumes and Ill always associate his voice with my favorite hockey moments but its time to go Bob.

Time for sweeping changes I think, and yes that means dump coach's corner I think Ive had enough of Ron and Don, Cherry is so predictable and boring and half the time it seems McClean could care less and is afraid to speak up, and quite frankly Im just not interested in what Cherry has to say, he's just not relevant to hockey anymore imo.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Low balling is part of negotiating.

No, it isn't. Offering less than what the other party wants isn't lowballing. Low-balling is making an offer so low that it communicates your contempt for the value of what is offered. And I'd call one third of the value a low-ball offer.

Try going to someone selling a $600,000 house with a $200,000 conditional offer, and see what happens. Then tell him that you'll walk if he doesn't agree by Wednesday.

How many people watch HNIC just because of the damn theme song?

Irrelevant. The value of the theme song to the brand is undeniable. That's why this is a news story. Yet CBC, which has cash out the yin-yang to fund Don Cherry's suit fetish, is crying poor, pretending that paying the same rate as before, and raising it 15% after two years, would be irresponsibly spendthrift.

Bullshit. It's not that they can't pay for the rights, it's that they think they want all rights, so they can use the tune whereever they like, whenever they like, without getting sued again. And like most people who think they want all rights, they're dealing with sticker shock.

The point I want to make is don't say that you are simply looking for the same thing that you've had for the last ten years, when what you are really looking for is a raise.

They didn't say that. They said they "had offered the CBC a chance to renew its licence to use Claman's song on terms that were 'virtually identical to those that have existed for the past decade,'" and that a 15% increase would kick in after two years.

The 15% increase is $75 per broadcast -- that's chickenfeed. It doesn't pay for Don Cherry's throat lozenges.

The sticking point is not the price. What their statement seems to mean is that they've offered essentially the same licensing deal as before, i.e. the same usage limitations apply. CBC wants much more -- they want to "buy the song" so they don't have to worry about future limitations on its use -- and they don't want to pay a fair price for it.

All rights deals are popular with people who don't understand why they should have limitations and license fees -- which CBC, having violated the terms of the earlier agreement and initially refused to pay, does not. And all rights deals are relatively easy to force on people whose copyrights are without much value, for example the freelancer who writes an op-ed for the local fishwrap. But when the rights holder actually has something of value, something that's integral to your brand, the sticker shock on an all rights deal will kill you. But you're asking the rights holder to give up their income in perpetuity for a one-time payment, so it damn well should kill you. You're paying not for a specific use, but for all possible uses, including those you haven't thought of yet -- and you're surprised it's going to cost you?

[Phantom51]

McLean is the backbone of CBC sports in general, he can't go. Cherry see ya later, the song...bye bye.

[cferneyh]

Try going to someone selling a $600,000 house with a $200,000 conditional offer, and see what happens. Then tell him that you'll walk if he doesn't agree by Wednesday.

But who set the $600,000 price? If no one is willing to pay $600K for the house, it isn't a $600K house, is it?

Irrelevant. The value of the theme song to the brand is undeniable. That's why this is a news story. Yet CBC, which has cash out the yin-yang to fund Don Cherry's suit fetish, is crying poor, pretending that paying the same rate as before, and raising it 15% after two years, would be irresponsibly spendthrift.

I don't think it is irrelevant at all. Cherry brings in viewers, which in turn brings in advertiser dollars. Cherry pays for himself and/or makes money for the show. Does the theme do that? I think not.

They said they "had offered the CBC a chance to renew its licence to use Claman's song on terms that were 'virtually identical to those that have existed for the past decade,'" and that a 15% increase would kick in after two years.

I read it differently. Granted, that could be the fault of the editor of whatever article I read, but to me the 15% was a buried detail, but the "we want want we've always had" was front and center. "Same terms" and "15% increase" aren't the same thing.

The sticking point is not the price. What their statement seems to mean is that they've offered essentially the same licensing deal as before, i.e. the same usage limitations apply. CBC wants much more -- they want to "buy the song" so they don't have to worry about future limitations on its use -- and they don't want to pay a fair price for it.

But again, who decides what the fair price is? If nobody is willing to pay the price you set, I'm not sure how that is fair. I think the onus is on the copyright holder to prove what the market rates would be if they offered the HNIC them to anyone who wants it. And I have a hard time believing that anyone outside of advertisers would want to get their hands on it, and if that's the case, the copyright holder can shove the I am saddened by the decision of the CBC to drop the Hockey Night in Canada theme after our lengthy history together and just come out and admit it's simply about the money. And I don't blame her for that - but let's call a spade a spade.

[skippy the wonder dog]

But who set the $600,000 price? If no one is willing to pay $600K for the house, it isn't a $600K house, is it?

The seller always sets the price. That's how the world works.

It is possible to set a price on all rights to a creative work. And in every single instance I've ever been aware of, the buyer always balks. Not because the price isn't fair, but because the reason they want all rights is that they don't want to pay a fair price.

Cherry pays for himself and/or makes money for the show. Does the theme do that? I think not.

So you think branding is of no importance?

CBC treats the theme music as an important element of the brand. They play up the history of HNIC at the opening of every broadcast, and the theme music is the most recognizable element of that history. (Saving the Bob Cole jokes for now.)

I think the onus is on the copyright holder to prove what the market rates would be if they offered the HNIC them to anyone who wants it.

First off, the copyright holder doesn't have to prove anything. They get to demand their price, and its up to CBC to pay it, or not.

Beyond that, market value when you deal with copyrights isn't the same as market value of oranges. If you want my photo for the cover of your magazine, with distribution of 100,000 copies and a full page ad rate of $10,000, I might ask for $1000. That's based not on my photo being worth $1000, or on how many covers I can license in a year to make a living, but on the value of the photo to your particular enterprise. Cover photos move magazines off newsstands, readership drives ad sales, and ad sales buy your bacon, so the license cost of my photo is tied to your advertising rate. If you're National Geographic, the price just went up. If your circulation is 400, and your ad rate is ten bucks, either it goes down, or I don't deal with you at all. One client's price is not another's.

Same same here. HNIC is CBCs cash cow. If they want all rights to a theme song that defines their brand, they're going to pay through the nose. What another user might pay for it doesn't much matter.

(On that note, I don't know why they're talking about other buyers. That doesn't make sense to me.)

[cferneyh]

But who set the $600,000 price? If no one is willing to pay $600K for the house, it isn't a $600K house, is it?

The seller always sets the price. That's how the world works.

It is possible to set a price on all rights to a creative work. And in every single instance I've ever been aware of, the buyer always balks. Not because the price isn't fair, but because the reason they want all rights is that they don't want to pay a fair price.

Hence, negotiation.

Cherry pays for himself and/or makes money for the show. Does the theme do that? I think not.

So you think branding is of no importance?

CBC treats the theme music as an important element of the brand. They play up the history of HNIC at the opening of every broadcast, and the theme music is the most recognizable element of that history. (Saving the Bob Cole jokes for now.)

Yes, branding is very important, obviously. But here's the thing - branding changes. It evolves (something Cherry will never be accused of). So at some point you have to measure the cost/benefit of the components of your brand, and make the decision in what components are important, and what can be left behind, or changed. Sorry, I just have a hard time accepting people would ever stop watching HNIC if the theme song was different. And without all this media-generated hub-bub, there would likely be a large segment of viewers who didn't even notice a change.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Well, I'm sure people won't stop watching if the theme song goes away.

A little digging reveals what's at issue. The rights holder caught CBC using the song in overseas broadcasts, which were not covered by the original terms. CBC apparently refused to pay a fair rate (easily determined, based on the existing rate), and the relationship deteriorated.

At the same time, the rights holder licensed the tune to Bell as a ringtone, which the agreement allowed her to do. CBC attempted to kill the deal, and demanded that Bell buy advertising from them as a condition of allowing the deal to go ahead.

The rights holder sued CBC for (a) unauthorized additional use, (b) improper interference in her licensing additional rights to Bell.

Going forward, it appears that CBC wants to protect its brand, profit from additional licensing (e.g. ringtones), and have unrestricted use of the song. They want to settle the litigation and walk away with all rights in perpetuity, so that they have complete control.

Given that ten years ago, nobody would predict this thing being licensed as a ring tone, what do you think all rights in all media is worth to the seller? Much more than it is to the buyer, guaranteed. The problem with any negotiation for all rights is that the buyer wants something for nothing.

(And if you don't think buyers are after something for nothing, you should read their contracts. Some of them actually specify estraterrestrial publishing in all rights contracts. Believe it.)