This article specifically concerns the DVD release of WKRP in Cincinnati, but by reading it, you can get the idea of how much it costs to get the rights to a song.

It's ridiculous, but from the figures, 20 songs at $40,000 each would be $800,000!

http://www.startribune.com/459/story/1131165.html

This article specifically concerns the DVD release of WKRP in Cincinnati, but by reading it, you can get the idea of how much it costs to get the rights to a song.

It's ridiculous, but from the figures, 20 songs at $40,000 each would be $800,000!

http://www.startribune.com/459/story/1131165.html

It is astronomical and out of whack, and I personally don't blame the DVD companies at all. Do some of you have any idea how many sets they'd have to sell in order to just break out even? And we're talking only the costs for the music. How about the rights just to sell the show? What costs are involved in remastering, editing, and packaging?

I say we're damn lucky for what we've been given. I agree it's not as perfect as it should be, but at least it shows that they're trying. I personally would rather have the shows in altered format than not at all. I respect others who feel differently, but at the very least, open your eyes and see that Paramount is not the villain here. They're not the ones to be blamed. They could have just decided to not release anything at all.

At least they made the effort...


Ed

This is also my feeling on the subject. It does suck, but I don't really feel that the DVD distributors are the ones to blame. Blame greedy record labels and artists.. As some others have pointed out, it would be a way for the artists to get some of these ancient songs promoted again, but they're making the choice to continue to keep their songs in the dark.. It's a situation where no one ultimately wins, and it really doesn't make any sense. DVD distributors aren't going to pay the outrageous licensing fees/royalties; so, the labels/artists sitting on the copyrights(for greed)aren't going to see a dime this way, and we aren't going to get the songs that helped set the tone for so many different televison shows.

In an attempt to be somewhat open to both sides, I do think they could have at least featured "Rock Around The Clock" as the opening theme, and paid for the use of "Jingle Bells" in the Christmas episode. If they were able to use "Rock Around The Clock" on the season one set, I don't see why it couldn't have been here; especially considering it was a rerecording for the series. I know there would still be royalties to pay, but it wouldn't be as expensive as using the original song(at least I wouldn't think).

In an attempt to be somewhat open to both sides, I do think they could have at least featured "Rock Around The Clock" as the opening theme, and paid for the use of "Jingle Bells" in the Christmas episode. If they were able to use "Rock Around The Clock" on the season one set, I don't see why it couldn't have been here; especially considering it was a rerecording for the series. I know there would still be royalties to pay, but it wouldn't be as expensive as using the original song(at least I wouldn't think).

Perhaps there's more to the story. From what I hear, Paramount lost big time with the release of Season 1, so perhaps they were pinching pennies as much as they could as to not only guarantee a profit from sales on Season 2, but to also help make back what they lost (which was huge!) on Season 1. I know Married With Children also had to get a new theme song too for its DVD releases.

I'm sure the expense of paying for the theme song isn't worth it the older a series gets on DVD. It's a fact that the earlier seasons typically sell way more than the later seasons, and since Season 1 wasn't that big to begin with, they probably figured they needed to cut whatever corners they could to ensure there's a commercial reason (in other words profits) to continue with the series. Even with the way things are now, Paramount isn't even guaranteed to break out even, let alone make a profit. Odds are still good that they'll be seeing a loss on their investment, yet people still moan and groan. It's a no-win situation for all involved.

I have this notion that Paramount is proud of Happy Days and wants to honor it the best way possible, but they can't be stupid and do it in a way that guarantees mega-losses on their end. I also think they want to please the fans as well. They just have to cut corners to do so. If one of those corners happens to be the theme song, so be it. At least the alternate theme song is actually associated with the show and isn't something entirely new that no one has heard before. Things could be a lot worse for sure...


Ed

When the music was used in the originial taping of the show wasn't it paid for then? Why do they have to keep paying for it over & over again? Just curious about it!

When the music was used in the originial taping of the show wasn't it paid for then? Why do they have to keep paying for it over & over again? Just curious about it!

Again, I'm not sure, but if it was already bought and paid for, surely they would've used it? I think it's safe to assume that they wouldn't have let their "lease" of the original theme song go to waste.

I don't claim to know the ins and the outs but I do think they're trying their best in a no-win crappy situation. For that they deserve kudos...


Ed

i am so pissed that paramount did a poor job on season 2 i am telling you, nobody is going to buy season 2 especially with all of the scenes an music replace, we have been waiting a long time and this is what they give us, i bet they got a lot of letters with complaints they could spend billions of dollers on networks and not the music rights they should have dealt with the music issues first again it makes no sense to see hd2 in the quailty that it is in, people want to see the show as it was on abc i will be shocked if season 2 does well but not to many people are going to buy it, we have to tell it like it is again paramount has to take a lot of blame for this because they do not commercial advertise there dvd's the brady bunch did well when they commerical advertised it s did andy graffith again there is no excuse i am not buying seaon 2 especailly of years of waiting its not worth and paramount is the blame if season two does not do well because i bet you right now some fans are ruturning the season 2 dvd sets back because of the picture quailty nobody is going to buy that product that incomplete paramount has really let the fans down and let themelves down, and i bet you all garry marshal is pissed but what can he really do about it nothing, if paramount gets lots of letters and complaints do you believe they will be able to re-released season 2 with all of the missing music an scenes or do you think that the damages has been already done

In an attempt to be somewhat open to both sides, I do think they could have at least featured "Rock Around The Clock" as the opening theme, and paid for the use of "Jingle Bells" in the Christmas episode. If they were able to use "Rock Around The Clock" on the season one set, I don't see why it couldn't have been here; especially considering it was a rerecording for the series. I know there would still be royalties to pay, but it wouldn't be as expensive as using the original song(at least I wouldn't think).

Jingle Bells has been in the public domain for years and unless there's something I'm unaware of, No royalties would have been required to use the song.

Jingle Bells has been in the public domain for years and unless there's something I'm unaware of, No royalties would have been required to use the song.

That's not necessarily true. It sometimes depends on who is singing what song and who arranged it (by "arranged" I mean how the song is performed and in what style and so forth). "Jingle Bells", if done by a popular artist or arranged by a popular artist, would most suredly have to have royalties paid.

Again, I don't know all of what went down with Paramount, but it's common sense to think that any music they could've used that didn't require huge amounts of $$, they most suredly would've used. I don't think they picked songs at random to leave out.

For instance, "White Christmas" was left off of Season 1 of The Mary Tyler Moore Show and that was sung by Mary herself. FOX didn't do the first season cheap either. They went all out with the packaging and the extras. But the amount required to pay for "White Christmas" must've been pretty hefty for FOX to pass on.

Songs in the public domain or not exempt. If a show does a country version of "Jingle Bells", then somewhere, someone arranged a country version of it. That person and its company has legal right to be paid royalties for that song. If another show that same year features "Jingle Bells" and does it in a jazz style, then again, someone somewhere arranged that jazz style and has legal right for royalties. This is true even if a show's cast does the singing and not some famous recording artist. It's a sticky situation.

Nowadays, the newer shows work out these rights before the episode even airs because DVD sales are factored into the deals, but this was not the case back in the day of Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley, where the DVD didn't exist yet and some of the public didn't even own a VCR.

Sadly, until the royalty holders realize they stand to gain nothing by charging huge fees for use of their music, the situation will not get better. Part of the problem is that some of the royalty holders do get part of what they charge because some companies do try to include *some* of the original music. Paramount did pay hefty fees for Season 1 of both Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley, only to have marginal sales and no profits whatsoever.

They are trying to please fans of these shows but they're caught between a rock and a hard place. Fans shouldn't expect Paramount to be obligated to pay these huge fees (or even release more seasons) simply because of the show's TV heritage. They do respect their TV past and want to do right by them, but they shouldn't be expected to do it at such a great loss to them. And it was a great loss. Not only did they not make a profit or break out even, their loss wasn't marginal but HUGE. And yet here they are, continuiing to release a Season 2 set of both shows and still people continue to moan and groan that Paramount doesn't care.

I think some fans need to "sit on it"...


Ed

to say that Paramount/CBS is faultless in this situation is ridiculous.

- they made loyal fans wait 2-1/2 YEARS for this second season release; if acquiring the music rights and fixing sound and video problems weren't being worked on, then WHAT WAS THE HOLD UP?

- they list this set at $38.99 - if they saved themselves HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars by not acquiring the music rights, why are they still shafting us with the high price tag?

- yes it is the greedy holders of the music rights that are holding these DVD sets hostage, but who are we kidding here - ALL OF THESE COMPANIES WORK TOGETHER ALL OF THE TIME. How many of these artists' music licenses are held by Paramount, FOX, Sony and others? They can't cut THEMSELVES a break for one of their own projects? If some other, albeit competing, company holds the rights to a song they need, they can't make a deal for some other song that they DO hold the rights for?

it just seems to me that they really didn't try very hard AT ALL to put any effort into Season Two - its almost as if they are saying "well, sales for the set we put everything into were low, so lets see how bad they get if we don't put ANYTHING into this one..."

...and the better this one sells, the less likely it will be that we see any music in any future Paramount/CBS season sets.

Sorry, Ed. Any song that is in the public domain can be recorded and sold by anyone who chooses to do so. If I wanted to record a country version of Jingle Bells and sell it then I could do so without fear of repercussion. Of course nobody in their right mind would buy it but I'm just making a point.

Even if the arrangement is different and no matter if it's recorded by someone famous or not, Public Domain is still just that. Toby Keith could record a country version of Jingle Bells and his record company could release it and legally sell it but since the song is PD, That also makes it legal for anyone else to use it in any capacity they see fit. He can record the song and receive royalties from any sales but since he nor his record co. own the actual rights to the song then that makes it legal for anyone else to download, sell it etc.....

I'm certainly no expert on these things but I do know someone who is a Law expert and I'm sure he'll be glad to let me know if I'm right or wrong. If by chance I am mistaken then I will apologize to you in advance and while you're at it, Why don't you see if you can find someone or something that backs up what you said. If you can prove that I'm wrong then fine but I doubt I am.

i agree 100 percent with roby about paramount making us waite 2-1 1/2 years for season 2 release i have said a couple of times on this thread that paramount rather invest billions of dollers on other compaines rather then to try to get the music rights. and without the original music we do not get to see the original deleted scenes that was cut in syndication, we all have said occassionally that we wanted to finally get to see and hear all of the original music and plus the deleted scenes, and i have said time and time again, that when season one of happy days came out, they should have commercial advertise it and that way we would have seen the rest of the seasons but to me, all paramount wants to do is putting a product out there without working on it, and i cannot stress this enough, that is why season one did not do as well because they do not commercialized there dvd's as much, happy days laverne an shirley an mork an mindy where classic and again there is no excuse for the lack of work that they did on season 2, and i really feel sorry for them because the fans are not going to pay money for something that is not complete it does not make sense, an people who says that the replacement generic music is not so bad to listen too, to me it is because we have been hearing replacement music on syndication, its said to say it but its true, i thank god for tj an pava for posting up the reviews and if anybody believes that we will see season 3 i got news for you all we won't because i no for a fact season 2 will not sell if it does then i will be shocked, we have to be real her how many loyal fans do you think is sending complaint letters and calls to paramount again no excuess, there are alot of things that they should have addressed but they fail, too but trust me season 2 will not do as we all think that it will

to say that Paramount/CBS is faultless in this situation is ridiculous.

- they made loyal fans wait 2-1/2 YEARS for this second season release; if acquiring the music rights and fixing sound and video problems weren't being worked on, then WHAT WAS THE HOLD UP?

There was no hold up. Plans for any future releases were actually CANCELLED since there was such a huge loss. Why would they put the shows back on a release schedule when it was such a financial loss to begin with? There was also a buyout or merger of sorts within the company and that delayed a lot of other projects. Such is life.

What some of you fail to understand is that Paramount doesn't owe you or me a bloody thing. They're not obligated at all to even release more seasons, let alone altered versions. It seems that some argue that, because of a long wait, that somehow makes them liable to spend more $$ on music licensing than they should. How do you figure that?

Leave It to Beaver is a classic show, although it's one I don't have any interest in. Suppose that show was a financial burden for a company to release. Should the company that owns the show be obligated to release season sets when they don't even make a profit? As much as I respect TV heritage, I as a company surely wouldn't care to release more seasons of Leave It to Beaver if it's a guaranteed financial loss. It's just business sense. (By the way, I have no idea the situation surrounding Leave It to Beaver. I'm just using that as an example)

- they list this set at $38.99 - if they saved themselves HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars by not acquiring the music rights, why are they still shafting us with the high price tag?

That is merely the suggested retail price. Lots of stores sell it for much less. Mine, for instance, sold for $27. But just because some of the music fees were avoided doesn't mean there weren't other expenses. I'm almost done watching my Laverne & Shirley Season 2 set and I have to be honest with you, I've never seen the episodes look better. There surely was some restoration involved as well as acquiring the rights to sell the shows on DVD. There are always other expenses involved, things we're not privvy to, so don't fault them for trying to make some money. Wouldn't you do the same thing?


- yes it is the greedy holders of the music rights that are holding these DVD sets hostage, but who are we kidding here - ALL OF THESE COMPANIES WORK TOGETHER ALL OF THE TIME. How many of these artists' music licenses are held by Paramount, FOX, Sony and others? They can't cut THEMSELVES a break for one of their own projects? If some other, albeit competing, company holds the rights to a song they need, they can't make a deal for some other song that they DO hold the rights for?

You're wrong there. Again, it has to do with the artists who recorded the music, and sometimes (if the song is not in the public domain) who wrote the song as well. Then there's the initial publisher of said music too. It's a very convoluted process and it varies from song to song.

it just seems to me that they really didn't try very hard AT ALL to put any effort into Season Two - its almost as if they are saying "well, sales for the set we put everything into were low, so lets see how bad they get if we don't put ANYTHING into this one..."

...and the better this one sells, the less likely it will be that we see any music in any future Paramount/CBS season sets.

You can have that outlook if you want, but seriously, we're very lucky that we're seeing a Season 2 release. The financial losses were that severe on the first sets, so obviously, with a second attempt at selling the DVDs, they're going to be a bit more cautious and a bit more cheap. If the cost of putting the DVDs together is minimized by doing things cheaper, then they don't have to count on the sets selling as much. What other choice do they have other than not releasing anything at all? Would that make you happier? Or do you think the people who manufacture the DVDs should do it for free or next to nothing simply because it's Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley? Would you if you were in their shoes?


Sorry, Ed. Any song that is in the public domain can be recorded and sold by anyone who chooses to do so. If I wanted to record a country version of Jingle Bells and sell it then I could do so without fear of repercussion.

Of course you can, because it's YOUR version, but if I or a TV show were to take YOUR version of that song and air it on a show where it was central to the plot, you don't think you'd come knocking on my door expecting a cut of the pie? And legally you'd get it and more, simply because the courts frown on people who get screwed out of musical royalties. Look at how many have been sued by the music industry just for downloading songs illegally.

Of course nobody in their right mind would buy it but I'm just making a point.

Even if the arrangement is different and no matter if it's recorded by someone famous or not, Public Domain is still just that. Toby Keith could record a country version of Jingle Bells and his record company could release it and legally sell it but since the song is PD, That also makes it legal for anyone else to use it in any capacity they see fit. He can record the song and receive royalties from any sales but since he nor his record co. own the actual rights to the song then that makes it legal for anyone else to download, sell it etc.....

The Carpenters, as an example, have a Christmas album that has been in the "public domain" since 1978 (or thereabouts). You think that a TV show today could turn around and use their recording of, say "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town" and not be expected to pay royalty fees for it? And this is a situation where the lead singer, Karen Carpenter, is dead, but her estate, as well as her brother, Richard Carpenter, would expect a stipend of sorts. Don't you think it'd be the same with any traditional Christmas songs by Elvis Presley or Bruce Springsteen or The Boston Pops?

I'm certainly no expert on these things but I do know someone who is a Law expert and I'm sure he'll be glad to let me know if I'm right or wrong. If by chance I am mistaken then I will apologize to you in advance and while you're at it, Why don't you see if you can find someone or something that backs up what you said. If you can prove that I'm wrong then fine but I doubt I am.

Well, I'm not trying to fight with any of you about this. Really, I'm not. I just think some of you have expressed a lot of disdain for these releases and are a bit out of whack over it. Some of you should be so lucky if this is all you've got to be upset about. Honestly, when I think of the ongoing war in Iraq and the recent Virginia Tech Massacre and how many lives have been lost due to both, I merely shrug off things like classic TV not being treated like royalty. It just isn't that important to me that I'm going to make myself sick over this, and I love both shows.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not happy that the music has been changed. I want the shows in their entirety as much as anyone else, but it isn't going to happen. And I can see that it isn't merely the DVD company's fault. Out of respect to some of you, I was trying to explain the other side of the matter. Some of you have been going over the edge, fuming about Paramount as if they're second in line to the Devil. It's a little over the top, no?

Either way, you can all believe what you want, but if some of you want more insight as to what is involved when it comes to music copyright, go to http://www.copyright.gov/ and it will explain all. I have some insight myself since I am a songwriter and have had almost 40 songs of mine copywritten. There are a lot of factors involved when it comes to who is entitled to royalties and what not.

Other than that, I suggest trying to enjoy the sets. If that's not possible, then sell the thing on Ebay or Amazon.com and try to find a bootleg copy of the entire series. You'll end up with the original music, but then you run the risk of only getting syndicated cuts or crappy quality. Or maybe try recording episodes off of TV LAND or some other syndicate. There's plenty of options besides buying a set you're not going to be happy with.

Peace,

Ed

The Carpenters, as an example, have a Christmas album that has been in the "public domain" since 1978 (or thereabouts). You think that a TV show today could turn around and use their recording of, say "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town" and not be expected to pay royalty fees for it?

Of course because Santa Claus is Coming to Town isn't public domain but several of the songs from that Lp are.

When the music was used in the originial taping of the show wasn't it paid for then? Why do they have to keep paying for it over & over again? Just curious about it!
Because at that time there was no such thing as VCR's and DVD's. Had they known of DVD's they (the music writers) would have held out for a helluva lot more than they initially did for just the series and the eventual reruns. Now with DVD's, this is their chance to again, get money.

Of course because Santa Claus is Coming to Town isn't public domain but several of the songs from that Lp are.

It wouldn't matter what song they used from that LP, public domain or not. They could've used "O Holy Night" or "Ave Maria" or "Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow" and there would have to be royalties paid to the record company that has distribution rights to The Carpenters, plus the artists themselves (in Karen's case, her estate would get it, since she is deceased, as would her brother Richard). And then if the song isn't in the public domain, the songwriter (and sometimes there is more than one songwriter for a song) gets a cut as well.

Let's say "Mary Had a Little Lamb" was recorded by Barbra Streisand and then used on a TV show. You think that show could air the episode with the song included and then sell the episode on DVD, again with the song included, and think that Barbra Streisand wouldn't get any royalties from that? How about her music company that holds her rights as well as the record label she records on that would have to give permission (in other words, "lease") for the TV show to use her in the first place? How about the publisher of her songs, they'd get a cut too.

Don't you think that if the song had no fees attached to it, that they would have used it? Paramount, in its attempts to cut expenses, wouldn't waste an opportunity to use a song that was a "freebie". That's just common sense. I don't know how to explain this in any other way so that you'll understand. It just wouldn't matter what the song is.

Ed

I have a question, what song is used for the theme of Married with Children on the DVD?

Because at that time there was no such thing as VCR's and DVD's. Had they known of DVD's they (the music writers) would have held out for a helluva lot more than they initially did for just the series and the eventual reruns. Now with DVD's, this is their chance to again, get money.

Ah, finally, someone who gets it. And while it may seem like common sense that to charge too much for the music guarantees that the music royalty holders would make nothing, they're sometimes getting their way. Some of the TV shows pay for one or two songs that they feel are simply too important for the show to do without, and then the music companies/artists/publishers/etc. make a killing. So there's no hint that this will be improved in the near future.

So the dilemma now is, does a company release the shows with altered music or do they not release them at all?

I have a question, what song is used for the theme of Married with Children on the DVD?

I have no idea. I don't own any of the seasons. I just remember reading about the controversy when it surfaced and how fans were so upset about it. But again, what alternative does the company have?

Ed

Ah, finally, someone who gets it. And while it may seem like common sense that to charge too much for the music guarantees that the music royalty holders would make nothing, they're sometimes getting their way. Some of the TV shows pay for one or two songs that they feel are simply too important for the show to do without, and then the music companies/artists/publishers/etc. make a killing. So there's no hint that this will be improved in the near future.

So the dilemma now is, does a company release the shows with altered music or do they not release them at all?



I have no idea. I don't own any of the seasons. I just remember reading about the controversy when it surfaced and how fans were so upset about it. But again, what alternative does the company have?

Ed

I don't care for Married with Children, but reading your post above, you stated they used a different song for the theme. I never knew that. Now, I am curious as to what song is used instead. Hmmm...thanx for the info. :wave:

i forgot to mentioned you no what else is sad about season 2 of hd l an s and mork and mindy season 2 dv series, its not posted up on paramount website its sad

Regarding Married... with Children, "Love and Marriage," the show's original theme, was used for the first- and second-season sets. Beginning with the third season, they began using a newly-recorded instrumental to replace "Love and Marriage" for the DVDs. I don't think it has a name or anything - it's just a generic, sound-alike song.

Regarding Married... with Children, "Love and Marriage," the show's original theme, was used for the first- and second-season sets. Beginning with the third season, they began using a newly-recorded instrumental to replace "Love and Marriage" for the DVDs. I don't think it has a name or anything - it's just a generic, sound-alike song.
Thank you for that info. Do you know why they changed the theme?

Because at that time there was no such thing as VCR's and DVD's. Had they known of DVD's they (the music writers) would have held out for a helluva lot more than they initially did for just the series and the eventual reruns. Now with DVD's, this is their chance to again, get money.

The VCR was around when Happy Days premiered, Of course they were so darn expensive and not many people could afford one.

The VCR was around when Happy Days premiered, Of course they were so darn expensive and not many people could afford one.
I know it was "available" but it wasn't mainstream like they were in the 80's-90's...I bought my first one in 1985 and it cost me $500!!!!!

I know it was "available" but it wasn't mainstream like they were in the 80's-90's...I bought my first one in 1985 and it cost me $500!!!!!

Ok, I was just going by what you said although I had a feeling that you were aware that they were around back then. I think I got my first one about that same time but I can't recall how much it cost.

Ok, I was just going by what you said although I had a feeling that you were aware that they were around back then. I think I got my first one about that same time but I can't recall how much it cost.
And certainly DVD players weren't at all available. They (the music publishers) certainly had no idea the gold mine that would be the DVD and how successful it has become. I know when I got my first VCR, I was recording all kinds of things. It is obvious from the trading posts and other trading boards that people took advantage of the VCR back in those days and recorded shows that are not available. The music publishers are all up in arms abt the "losses" they could have incurred, so certainly, they will try and make up for it.

And certainly DVD players weren't at all available. They (the music publishers) certainly had no idea the gold mine that would be the DVD and how successful it has become. I know when I got my first VCR, I was recording all kinds of things. It is obvious from the trading posts and other trading boards that people took advantage of the VCR back in those days and recorded shows that are not available. The music publishers are all up in arms abt the "losses" they could have incurred, so certainly, they will try and make up for it.

About the only thing I recorded was music videos and wrestling, I was into tape trading hot and heavy for a few years but lost interest in it and got rid of most of my stuff. My biggest regret was getting rid of my Sony Betamax, That was probably the best VCR I ever owned.

Thank you for that info. Do you know why they changed the theme?
Yep. The publishers (or whoever) wanted a certain price for the use of "Love and Marriage" and refused to budge. Sony couldn't (or wouldn't) pay what they were asking, so they composed a new theme to use. It's weird that they were able to reach a deal for the first two season sets and two "best-of" compilations but couldn't for the third season and beyond.

Yep. The publishers (or whoever) wanted a certain price for the use of "Love and Marriage" and refused to budge. Sony couldn't (or wouldn't) pay what they were asking, so they composed a new theme to use. It's weird that they were able to reach a deal for the first two season sets and two "best-of" compilations but couldn't for the third season and beyond.
Thank you. Yes, that is strange. I wonder, maybe the first two seasons sold very well and the publishers felt they could get a bigger piece of the pie by asking for a larger amt. of $$$.

Yep. The publishers (or whoever) wanted a certain price for the use of "Love and Marriage" and refused to budge. Sony couldn't (or wouldn't) pay what they were asking, so they composed a new theme to use. It's weird that they were able to reach a deal for the first two season sets and two "best-of" compilations but couldn't for the third season and beyond.

I don't think they went up in price. What I think happened is that Sony anticipated that the following seasons wouldn't sell as well as the first two. In fact I think I remember reading where the second season sold really well for Sony, but still not as much as the first. With a steady decrease in mind, Sony wanted to continue releasing the sets in a way that would not help guarantee that they not lose any money. If they were to lose money, they'd have to stop releasing the show, which would infuriate the fans who've invested in the sets from that point.

I can't say I blame them; this isn't greed we're talking about but good business sense. Every company has stock holders that they have to answer to and as long as a product is released that's been proven to cost them money instead of making it, eventually releases would have to cease. It just recently happened with Boy Meets World, and as far as I know, that show didn't have any music issues to worry about. Releasing shows on DVD has an expense to it no matter what, and the music issues just compound that expense.

Paramount, in regards to Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley, is already caught between a rock and a hard place. They put out decent first season compilations and ate a lot in terms of music fees (which explains why they couldn't afford to put any extras) and yet it still didn't sell well. So both shows were put on hiatus, with the almost certainty that Season 1 of both shows would be the only DVD release.

Now we're given a Season 2 release in the best way they could issue it, and people seem to think that because it took so long to come out, it means Paramount is obligated to include the original music, no matter the cost to them. Have you ever heard of anything so stupid in your life? We're damn lucky to even see a Season 2 release, and people are moaning and groaning because it didn't come with all the trimmings, even when it's explained why they had to cut things out to maintain a healthy budget. That isn't greed on Paramount's part and it isn't laziness either. They have to do what they have to do in order to survive as a company. If they don't, eventually they'll cease to be, and won't that guarantee no more releases? But no, people continue to attack them. Hey, whatever.

I've done all I can to make the issue as clear as possible, but some refuse to get it or just plain don't want to. They obviously don't have any idea what the business world entails, but at least some of you grasp the concept. Paramount could've easily abandoned the idea of releasing the shows altogether, and given how much they lost on the initial Season 1 releases, they'd be right to do just that. But they want to at least try to please the fans by releasing the show in the best affordable way, even though they're still not guaranteed to make any money, and still people moan and groan. It's a no win situation.

I, for one, am looking forward to many more releases in the near future...


Ed

well, i call BS - i mean sure, they didn't make as much money on season one as THEY WANTED TO - but there is no way that they actually LOST money on it and still released season 2.

...and unless someone provides actual sales figures (good luck), i really don't think anyone can make claims about how much they "lost" on it.

well, i call BS - i mean sure, they didn't make as much money on season one as THEY WANTED TO - but there is no way that they actually LOST money on it and still released season 2.

...and unless someone provides actual sales figures (good luck), i really don't think anyone can make claims about how much they "lost" on it.

Actually, sales figures were cited. I don't have the specific article, but there was a link to it on www.tvshowsondvd.com since many fans were asking the site about the delay on Season 2. And many times if money is lost on a series, a company will try a different approach before writing it off forever, especially if they'd already done restorative work on more than one season.

Try thinking outside the box...


Ed

Actually, sales figures were cited. I don't have the specific article, but there was a link to it on www.tvshowsondvd.com since many fans were asking the site about the delay on Season 2. And many times if money is lost on a series, a company will try a different approach before writing it off forever, especially if they'd already done restorative work on more than one season.

Try thinking outside the box...


Edi check www.tvshowsondvd.com EVERY day, multiple times per day.

no actual sales figures have EVER been cited, there HAVE been a few stories about how they have been misleading about actual sales figures - including one story from the LA Times specifically regarding this.

when Paramount says they "lost" money, they mean "compared to what they COULD have made if they had released something else instead"

...and are you actually claiming that they had "already done restorative work" for season 2?

because it sure doesn't look like it.

i check www.tvshowsondvd.com EVERY day, multiple times per day.

no actual sales figures have EVER been cited, there HAVE been a few stories about how they have been misleading about actual sales figures - including one story from the LA Times specifically regarding this.

when Paramount says they "lost" money, they mean "compared to what they COULD have made if they had released something else instead"

...and are you actually claiming that they had "already done restorative work" for season 2?

because it sure doesn't look like it.

There was a link from www.tvshowsondvd.com that went to an article where Paramount was talked about and they mentioned that one, there was a merger of sorts with their company, and two, how they were expanding their catalogue. They also covered the problems they had with some of their DVD releases, and Happy Days was one of them. The issue was the music licensing.

If you want to insist this wasn't the case, feel free to do so. I'm not a spokesperson for Paramount but I have heard of other DVD companies running into the same thing when it comes to shows. Some have had to even alter well-known theme songs (Married With Children) being an example.

Classic TV doesn't sell as well as you think and the costs for licensing the music for DVD use is quite hefty for shows that are not current day "hits". Classic TV DVDs tend to sell well during the first two weeks of its release and then peter off. Current hits like Seinfeld, Friends, and Everybody Loves Raymond have their music licenses already worked out and can afford to pay more since the sales of these series is a lot more steady.

As far as restorative work on Season 2, I was referring to Laverne & Shirley since I had just got done replying to a thread that you posted there. I can see that it looks like there wasn't much done visually for Season 2 of Happy Days as there should have been. I don't have an explanation for it. I can only guess that they possibly skipped that in the hope of recouping some of their loss on Season 1's release.

I think Paramount has this parity agreement where they have to release both Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think this is the case. With Laverne & Shirley, the sales were not only better than Happy Days, but overall the series is less expensive since the music for that show was not as much of an issue. There simply was less music involved, defraying some of the cost. So they figured they could afford to invest in Season 2's restoration for Laverne & Shirley. This is only speculation on my part, but the Season 2 release of Laverne & Shirley looks beautiful. I've never seen the show look so clear. This is why I think they invested more in Laverne & Shirley and not as much in Happy Days .

Ed

There was a link from www.tvshowsondvd.com that went to an article where Paramount was talked about and they mentioned that one, there was a merger of sorts with their company, and two, how they were expanding their catalogue. They also covered the problems they had with some of their DVD releases, and Happy Days was one of them. The issue was the music licensing.

If you want to insist this wasn't the case, feel free to do so. I'm not a spokesperson for Paramount but I have heard of other DVD companies running into the same thing when it comes to shows. Some have had to even alter well-known theme songs (Married With Children) being an example.
no, i just re-read that article, and it doesn't mention any ACTUAL sales figures anywhere.

Classic TV doesn't sell as well as you think and the costs for licensing the music for DVD use is quite hefty for shows that are not current day "hits". Classic TV DVDs tend to sell well during the first two weeks of its release and then peter off. Current hits like Seinfeld, Friends, and Everybody Loves Raymond have their music licenses already worked out and can afford to pay more since the sales of these series is a lot more steady. that same article mentions that these studios make MORE money from most tv-sets, and that Paramount planned to EXPAND the number of TV-dvd set releases to increase their profits.

I understand that there are music licensing issues, and other costs associated with releasing older shows, which when combined with lower sales compared to current tv shows makes it tougher to make BIG profits on them, BUT that doesn't mean that they can't put out sets that will still make fans happy. I wouldn't even be so bothered by the music changes, if they had taken more care to do it without sacrificing the overall audio, and made a little more effort in restoring the video.

all I am saying is that is seems obvious that they went out of their way to make the Season 2 release as cheaply as possible, and it wasn't neccesary to go to such great lengths to cut every corner possible to make the most profit on the set.

hey happy days what’s up, I called paramount television recently not that it was going to do any good, but I spoke with there home video department and no I did not yell, I just told them that I was really disappointed in the happy days season 2 released, and they told me that they were getting tons of complaints from fans which I had already predicted they told me that if season 2 does not do well which we all no its not we will not see season 3 I told you all fans that paramount does not care for us the fans and who ever buys there DVDs they do not care and I said it once before it will not surprised me if we do not see season 3 they screwed up not us peace

hey hd fans tell me how is the sells from season 2 is doing well or not well, a friend of mine who lives in ny tol me that he gets this magainze which tells him what dvd's are doing well he told me that happy days season 2 is not doing well at all, i wonder if paramount got letters of complaints, i was thinking did anybody ever recall the band singing and performing some of little richard songs such as tuttie fruitty and i wanna rip it up peace please let m no how well season 2 is doing

Does anybody have a list of some of the orginal music that was heard on season 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of hd i saw the list of season 2 that anglemark7 had posted up

no, i just re-read that article, and it doesn't mention any ACTUAL sales figures anywhere.

No business ever posts ACTUAL sales figures. It just isn't done. What is posted is whether or not something has made a profit.

all I am saying is that is seems obvious that they went out of their way to make the Season 2 release as cheaply as possible, and it wasn't neccesary to go to such great lengths to cut every corner possible to make the most profit on the set.

I'm not defending their shoddy treatment of Season 2, but just trying to possibly explain why they did it. I do understand their need to alter the music and it's a no win situation on that part. Either they alter it or don't release the show at all. It's a sucky trade off, for sure, but what choice do they have? The same has occurred with WKRP in Cinncinnati. There's no way they'd make enough $$ in sales to cover the costs of the music licensing (which, whether you admit it or not, is ridiculously mega-expensive), let alone the other costs in putting out the set. We're not talking breaking out even here but taking a loss.

The cutting of corners in other aspects is, again, trying to guarantee that they at least make back on their investment. Season 1 of Happy Days did not do that. There are costs in licensing a TV show in general (even without music costs) and Paramount's DVD division (shared by CBS if I'm not mistaken) have to answer to their shareholders. If something doesn't sell well, it's shot down. It's just how things are done in the business world. We're lucky the releases didn't stop with Season 2.

I'm not saying it was a perfect situation but I am saying I can understand why certain decisions are made. If I owned a business, I'd want the biggest return on my investment. I wouldn't want to merely break out even and I definitely wouldn't want to lose money either. Would you, even if it happens to be for a favorite TV show? I would rather doubt it. And Paramount had officially stated that they lost money with Season 1 and that originally, plans were to NOT release any more seasons. Why should we doubt them?

Paramount's DVD division is a business and it needs to make profits to not only survive but to justify licensing its classic TV shows. If sales are abysmal or are below expectations, they sometimes try another approach with their shows before writing it off forever. That's what happened with Happy Days. It stinks and it's unfortunate, but being in their position, I don't think I'd do a lot of things differently. They could've abandoned the show altogether instead of releasing Season 2.

Try thinking of the business side instead of as a fan and you'll soon understand (if not agree) why certain decisions are made. That's all I'm saying.


Ed

but i AM thinking on the business side - if they cut EVERY POSSIBLE CORNER, and make a set that even the AVERAGE fan won't be happy with, and it gets terrible reviews everywhere, it will HURT their sales, and possibly they would make LESS profit on it than they would have if they had just done a decent job with the audio and video restoration.

music licensing isn't even an ISSUE in that regard.

but i AM thinking on the business side - if they cut EVERY POSSIBLE CORNER, and make a set that even the AVERAGE fan won't be happy with, and it gets terrible reviews everywhere, it will HURT their sales, and possibly they would make LESS profit on it than they would have if they had just done a decent job with the audio and video restoration.

music licensing isn't even an ISSUE in that regard.

But it is in that they're still in the hole from Season 1's release, and that's something you don't seem to want to accept. I'm not saying it's acceptable, but from a business standpoint, they probably figured that if the sales from Season 2 are marginal at best, if they don't put that much $$ into it, it's not a total loss.

Paramount is caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to this show. It's been said that they paid over 1 million to license the music for Season 1 alone (1 million being the total amount for ALL the songs they did get permission to use), and without seeing any sales figures, you're naive to think that they made back that 1 million in sales. No way have they done this. They didn't break out even but had a huge LOSS. So they're on the defensive when it comes to further seasons. Paramount's DVD division is in partnership with CBS's and they both have stockholders to answer to when it comes to profits and losses.

I agree they should've put more effort into the restoration of picture/audio quality, but with the huge LOSS they had on Season 1, they probably figured it wasn't worth the risk. I think that sucks, mind you, but I can understand why it was done.

I also think each show is given a budget to work with in regards to restoration, music licensing, and extras (like bloopers, commentaries, etc.), and that budget is based on previous sales. Given that Happy Days was, in every sense of the word, a failure in regards to sales, no way would the DVD division's stockholders grant them a sizable enough budget to invest in restoration. It's just too much of a risk to them. Laverne & Shirley, on the other hand, was more successful, not so much because of the sales but because it didn't require as much $$ to be put into it, so it's seen as more of a money maker. Hence the beautiful restoration we've been given on Season 2.

Everything affects everything else when it comes to sales. If sales plummet and fees are too expensive, the budget for each show gets minimized. What matters to them is the bottom line.

I think Paramount is personally very frustrated with the situation, simply because not only do they have legal right to license the show, but they themselves produced the show originally. I'm sure it's annoying that they can't find a way to lucratively make the show accessible so that both fan and stockholder are happy.

"Happy days" indeed...


Ed

i think it is unfair to call me naive because I refuse to believe the claims of a company that won't be honest about anything else...

I have been trying to find that LA Times article again that mentions the lawsuits brewing about some of these studios misrepresenting their profits/losses on a number of dvd properties to get out of paying out the fair share of profits to various rights holders.

I understand that they have a right to make a profit, and that they shouldn't be expected to reveal ALL of their financial details, but don't expect me to feel sorry for them when they fail to make AS MUCH profit as they had hoped on any individual property.

I am also tired of people saying that these studios don't owe the fans anything - OF COURSE THEY DO!

without the fans buying their products, they wouldn't be raking in the BILLIONS of dollars they do every year - and I am sorry, but if they take their customers for granted, then they deserve what they get.

i think it is unfair to call me naive because I refuse to believe the claims of a company that won't be honest about anything else...

That is not what I was saying when I said you were naive. I said you were naive in thinking that they sold enough copies of Season 1 to make back their 1 million that they invested in the music licensing. And I still stand by that.

Other shows have experienced the same problem. Are they lying too? See here for example:

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=7201

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=7212

I have been trying to find that LA Times article again that mentions the lawsuits brewing about some of these studios misrepresenting their profits/losses on a number of dvd properties to get out of paying out the fair share of profits to various rights holders.

So in addition to having to pay out music royalties, now they're expected to pay out to even more sources. This is bound to make them even more reluctant to sell shows that only sell moderately. Good going!

I understand that they have a right to make a profit, and that they shouldn't be expected to reveal ALL of their financial details, but don't expect me to feel sorry for them when they fail to make AS MUCH profit as they had hoped on any individual property.

Again, you're turning the argument around. I didn't say you had to feel badly. I even said you were entitled to disagree. Where did I say you had to feel badly? I was just trying to get you to understand that there are more factors involved. It's certainly much more plausible than thinking a company is out to do your favorite show an injustice.

I am also tired of people saying that these studios don't owe the fans anything - OF COURSE THEY DO!

Well, you say people, so I'll assume you don't mean me in particular, but if you do intend to include me as one of the "people", again, I never said that they didn't owe the fans anything. What they definitely do NOT owe is the release of shows on DVD at such a great loss to them. And I stand by that. That's just common business sense. It isn't personal, however you may feel about it.

without the fans buying their products, they wouldn't be raking in the BILLIONS of dollars they do every year - and I am sorry, but if they take their customers for granted, then they deserve what they get.

You think they rake in BILLIONS on a show like Happy Days? Tell me, where is your financial data to back up your claim?

Again, they SPENT 1 million on music licensing for Happy Days Season 1, not to mention other fees for putting out the show. You honestly believe they made more than a million back to justify their trouble? Do you really? If that's the case, then there's no talking to you.

Look, I'm just as frustrated, but their hands are tied. They cannot, and will not, invest in a product that is guaranteed to lose them money. Would you?


Ed

the point i am trying to make that you are missing Ed, is that i UNDERSTAND why they cut all those corners on the Season 2 set - I just think they made a mistake, and that they would've made MORE profits by spending a little extra on making the set BETTER, without spending anything extra on music licensing.

if people don't buy season 2 because of how badly put together it is, it will also hurt any potential sales of FUTURE seasons as well. (and they could still be making SOME of those "losses" back on that coudn't they?)

So in addition to having to pay out music royalties, now they're expected to pay out to even more sources. This is bound to make them even more reluctant to sell shows that only sell moderately. Good going! no - if they AGREE in contracts and licensing agreements to pay someone a share of the profits, then it is WRONG to lie about the profits to get out of paying on those agreements.

Again, you're turning the argument around. I didn't say you had to feel badly. I even said you were entitled to disagree. Where did I say you had to feel badly? I was just trying to get you to understand that there are more factors involved. It's certainly much more plausible than thinking a company is out to do your favorite show an injustice.I understand that there are many factors involved, I just think that they made a mistake that will end up costing them profits, and they shouldn't expect the fans to feel sorry for them.

I understand that it is a business, but the fans have to choose which shows to spend their money on, and the shows that don't get "treated right" will reflect that in sales.

Well, you say people, so I'll assume you don't mean me in particular, but if you do intend to include me as one of the "people", again, I never said that they didn't owe the fans anything. What they definitely do NOT owe is the release of shows on DVD at such a great loss to them. And I stand by that. That's just common business sense. It isn't personal, however you may feel about it. actually, i don't remember you saying anything resembling that, so no i was NOT referring to you specifically.

if you took that to be what I was implying, then I apologize because that is not the case.

You think they rake in BILLIONS on a show like Happy Days? Tell me, where is your financial data to back up your claim?
Ed no, i said that the dvd INDUSTRY rakes in billions every year.

If you would like I can provide you with sources to back up THAT claim.


I am not trying to argue with you Ed; I think you are a nice guy, and I DO understand the points that you are debating here, I just happen to disagree with some of those points - so no hard feelings, we can agree to disagree?

Wow, intriguing thread.

To start, it seems some folks are unaware of the primary difference between a publishing copyright and a recording copyright. A publishing copyright protects the composition; nothing more. It protects a composition from being recorded without permission. Some older compositions' copyrights, though ("Jingle Bells" or most classical pieces, for instance), have expired, so they can be recorded by anyone who chooses to do so. However, once a song's been recorded and the artist/record company/etc. copyrights the recording, that recording cannot be used without procuring permission. The song may be public domain, but the recording is not. If someone wishes to use the recording for monetary gain, permission must be granted by the recording's copyright holder. Failing that, the composition can be recorded by someone else and used without reprisal.


I think the main issue here, though -- in the cases of all the television programs being altered when released on DVD -- is greed. It's not the DVD company's fault that the RIAA (as well as ASCAP and BMI) has placed such a high price tag on their allowances. I place full blame for those high costs in the hands of those greedy corruptorate organizations that have been abusing their power for decades. Their artists suffer, their consumers suffer, yet they have plenty of money to sue both in the name of the law.

Incidentally, don't justify the actions of the RIAA or the MPAA. Suing your own customer base is despicable. Our acceptance of unjust laws is the same thing as condoning them. Perhaps the laws need to be changed so that more power is put into the hands of the artists and/or consumers. ...but that's another argument entirely.

What I think CAN be blamed on Paramount and the other companies wanting to put out these terrific television shows is in the principle. Let's say, for arguments sake, that color film was copyrighted. Can you imagine buying a copy of The Wizard Of Oz without the whole color section?? Of course not. Imagine buying a copy of the Mona Lisa without her mouth being in the painting. It would be inconceivable to alter the art of either the movie or the painting.

I believe there are no excuses for altering artwork. It's for that reason I refuse to watch a movie on commercial television. Between the ad breaks and the alteration of the language, the art is completely smudged beyond enjoyment. At least for me. Much contemporary music, along the same lines, cannot be played on the radio in original form. For shame on the FCC for placing the rules, and for shame on the stations for abiding by them.

That being said, I think companies releasing these edited vintage television shows should be ashamed for marketing an alteration as the real thing. Making an effort? I don't think so. Personally, I would rather do without than to be insulted by the incomplete. When I have a beer, I expect it to taste like beer. If someone has thrown in some cod liver oil without my consent, am I gonna enjoy the beer as much? Of course not. I'd rather do without.

I came here because I'd read somewhere that The Odd Couple: Season Two will be hit with some music alterations. Sorry, but I've seen more than my share of edits over the years. Before I lay good money into my favorite TV shows, I need to be certain that the whole unfettered kit'n'kaboodle will be contained on those discs or I'm not buying the package. Say what you will about fewer sales meaning fewer releases, but that's that point. Perhaps enough letters to the companies and not enough sales will convey the message that this behavior is unacceptable.

milla

P.S. I am the originator of the :clap emoticon. And thank goodness there are no copyright laws for those. If there were, I'd probably not create them. ;)