I think a lot of people are looking way too deep into this issue. It's pretty simple. A lot of earlier shows weren't considering music rights for distribution for 'at home' releases. That's something that ends up needing to be renegotiated. It costs a lot of money for clearance, especially for big name bands/stars/musicians. So yes, it absolutely does matter how popular a show is when considering how much to save music wise in a show, and how much to spend on it. You think an unknown show is going to retain the music distribution rights against a show like The Simpsons? No. The Simpsons is gauranteed a bundle of sales, even with their latest crap-tacular effort at packaging.

A lof of newer shows already negotiate these things up front, and pay their dues.

'It's being run like the mob' and comments of the like, are clearly indicative that people feel that companies need to be doing business for the sake of the fans, but as has been discussed in numerous other shows that got threads asking 'why is the music gone', it's about money. Pure, and simple. I'm not saying some companies haven't been lazy *coughPARAMOUNTcough*, but that's all it's about, money.

I think the real answer for new shows is clear: ORIGINAL SCORES. Was there ever an issue with music in Arrested Development?

And another thing I don't understand...we have established that TV shows don't have the same music rights limitations overseas (Ally McBeal being released in full season sets with all music in tact over seas being one example) so...why don't they put out WKRP and Wonder Years overseas with the original music? Or any show for that matter?

Also, the way rights are obtained in UK is different and doesn't have to be renegotiated. Older british shows can be released in the U.S. with all the music intact, ie. The Beatles' "Get Back" in an episode of the 1969 show UFO.

All 4 seasons of Felicity have all music replaced, except ep1 and 22 of 1st season and the theme song JJ did.

Click on each season and scroll to bottom for alterations: tvshowsondvd.com

wired article. tvshowondvd article.

old s1 petition.

Season 2 HTF thread.

Without fucking around, simply put the record executives being very greedy and short-sighted for mindlessly passing over promotion for old songs, as are the media studios holding the rights to the TV shows to a lesser extent for not forking out money and moving on, coupled with a copyright system that is too draconian and increasingly incompatible for this rapidly expanding digital age.

Sony were miserly idiots in not pushing forward for publishing Dark Skies, yet at the same time they're leading the charge on copyright asshattery with their spyware and having a chair in the prehistoric RIAA.

I am fascinated that the prevailing mentality on this thread is that greedy record labels are interfering with the artistic integrity of TV shows. "Creators hand-picked these songs." No one, however, is considering the artistic integrity of the songs themselves. Remember, in the 1970s and 1980s, when shows like "WKRP in Cincinnati" aired, the rights to the songs were arranged with the basic understanding that the episode would air once first run, maybe twice in re-runs and then not again until syndication--if the series even got that far. Artists who had a say elected to get some national exposure; others discovered that their record labels determined whether or not their songs would be used.

As for the record labels, consider that they have to pay royalties to the songwriters, song publishers who published the actual lyrics and music, the vocalists who actually sing the song and the musicians who performed on the song. When a song is a more collaborative effort (especially anything written by several band members), then what happens is not that the pie is cut more ways, but the pie gets bigger. Paying one songwriter the writing royalty rate is one thing; paying several songwriters the writing royalty rate is another. Is there some reason that the people who created these songs should be bulldozed to get TV shows on DVD for you?

What will be interesting to follow is not the use of songs for DVDs, but their use in video games. Warner has already stated they feel that video games like "Guitar Hero" and "Rock Band" are making a killing, and they want more of that money to continue licensing their music catalog. Personally, I think they're trying to unring the bell on that one; if Warner jacks their rate, Activision, EA and the others will either shut out Warner until they cave, or if the other labels back Warner, they'll adapt in some way. Maybe they'll go back to using more covers, maybe they'll "go indie" or maybe they'll create their own music division and sign artists to record exclusively for them. Either way, however the video game industry handles the situation could have an impact on how the TV and film industries handle their relationships with the music industry.

But they are being greedy. Everyone is being greedy. Why would you demand so much money, either as a song writer, or an artist or whoever for a 30 second clip in a TV show? My point of view is that if it doesn't hurt the integrity of your work and doesn't cut into your sales why wouldn't you do it? That would be like Jay Leno paying a million dollars for Tom Cruise to come out and promote his new movie. Okay it isn't exactly like that but still. The work was already done years ago why be greedy now? If anything it will increase the sales of your albums by getting people to hear it more. Aren't bands clamoring to get heard on the radio where people can just record the full song instead of purchasing it? Isn't that a lot more harmful?

The video game issue is a very interesting one as well. I think right now the music industry is playing nice because they are desperate for new avenues to sell their music and now they have found one. But when they see all those dollar signs floating by I see them trying to screw things up and rock the boat to get more money. I hope the video game industry stands their ground and doesn't give in.

One thing I really don't understand is why in the world would an artist authorize you to use their song with a cover band? Doesn't this degrade the integrity of their music? Why wouldn't they just allow them to use the original?

Regarding the Guitar Hero and such paying to use songs, I've seen comments from some of those game producers to the effect that the music companies should pay them to put their songs in the game. Think about how many younger folks are being exposed to all kinds of music they never would have heard otherwise.

And as noted, a few second clip won't degrade your music, esp on something like WKRP that was all about the music.

To me it's also an artistic issue. It's like a paint company allowing an artist to use their brand of paint for making a portrait to hang in the Louvre, but if that painting were to ever tour the world, they refuse to allow it and the artist has to repaint it with another brand of paint, say one that doesn't catch the light just the same way, or doesn't stick to the canvas just right.

As for paying multiple people, sometimes you get a smaller cut of the profits. That sounds like business to me. It's like the Polyphonic Spree, they have a crapload of people in their group, so they each get a smaller cut, but they feel it's worth it because they're artists.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're both saying, why do UK series have replacement music as well?

Examples off the top of my head: Life on Mars, Saxondale, Still Game.

Yes they are. So what?

Everyone is being greedy. Why would you demand so much money, either as a song writer, or an artist or whoever for a 30 second clip in a TV show?[/QUOTE]

Because that's what they think the song is worth, and if the studio isn't willing to meet the price they can go get something else. Welcome to the free market. No one is under any obligation to sell you anything at a price you think is fair.

Because that's what they think the song is worth, and if the studio isn't willing to meet the price they can go get something else. Welcome to the free market. No one is under any obligation to sell you anything at a price you think is fair.[/QUOTE]

Except for healthcare. But that is a totally different issue.

Back to the discussion yes they have totally freedom to be totally greedy if they want but everyone looses out. They lose out on potential income and more importantly potential exposure. The creators of the TV show lose out because they can't utilize something to convey their ideas, and the audience definitely looses out.

So yeah they have the right to be greedy and they have a right to be total assholes about it. They have a right to demand tens of thousands of dollars for a 30 second clip of a song. Or to charge $2 for a 30 ringtone of a song you might already own. But all of that can really come and bite them in the ass and I think it really contributes to people pirating music. I think people have been sick of the music industry and that their greed and their inflexibility lead to them being totally blindsided by napster and its offspring.

I honestly think apple single handedly prevented the music industry from near collapse.

I mean when you can't sing Happy Birthday in a restaurant anymore what in the world is considered fair use? Too much is too much.