Discussion in 'The Rehearsal Room' started by brassneck, Apr 22, 2005.
Implications? Trust Factors? A Kick In The Pants?
Find more discussions like this one
BessonKapitol ImplicationsBesson sells National RulesOoo-errrTrust Factors
How do you own rules?
I mean seriously. If the BFBB what to makeup their own rules, is there a copyright infringement if they resemble the old rules. If so, how many contests with a random draw and set test piece would be in violation of this 'copyright?'
It seems rather sensible to me to have the control of the rules and the management of the contest within the same body. It would hopefully allow for a much smoother decision making process as there would be fewer interested parties involved and potentially less disruption to the bands involved. It remains to be seen though!!
With regards to the rules, I'm glad to see that Kapitol are taking a fairly reasonable approach by not changing them for change's sake.
I'd imagine that it is a real dissapointment for BFBB since they seem to be losing their influence bit by bit with every big decision.
On the contrary another part of banding`s decision making process (appeals etc.) is now being made by a private company dominated by Salvationists.
What do Besson have against bandspeople running things for themselves, the BFBB is not perfect but it has the long term future of banding at heart, do Kapitol?
It`s not the BFBB "losing their influence" its US losing control of yet another facet of our hobby.
The only implication of this for me is that I will never consider buying a Besson product as long as my backside points downwards!
A point of order here, please.
Kapitol Promotions Ltd. is the firm running the Nationals. The directors of the company are Philip Morris and Niki Bland. They are not Salvationists and I am not aware that they employ any Salvationists either.
Kapitol Media & Events Ltd. is the company that publishes British Bandsman and used to be owned by Philip Morris and Niki Bland until it was bought by Salvationist Publishing & Supplies Ltd. in July 2004.
When talking about Kapitol these days, you need to be clear which one you are referring to.
With regards to Besson's motives, they are (as are all for-profit corporations) obligated to pursue profit above all else - they have a duty to their shareholders to fulfill.
Their management obviously believes that this move will increase their potential profits.
The only reason that they will be (or should be, in their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders) be concerned about the long-term future of banding is that they will be able to sell more instruments if banding continues.
That being said, I don't think that this move changes anything significantly. Besson (and its predecessor companies) have owned these championships for many years, including through the "golden years" of banding. Does anyone really think that bands and players back then had any more control over the movement than they do now?
Without wishing to show my ignorance too much - what is this all about? It seems that all band correspondence, articles etc presume that everyone knows but ' I ain't got a clue'!! Any chance somebody could explain in thick man's terms.
Is there some reason though that 2 bodies share the same name? Were they originally one company that split or is it all coincidence? There's an easy way to save the confusion.
Go back and read the post from WorldofBrass. The two Kapitols were originally related, being owned by the same people (although I believe that they were always separately organized in the legal sense). Kapitol Media & Events Ltd. was sold to SP & S. Kapitol Promotions (which is NOT the same company) still exists under its old management.
It's very common in the business world for two completely different and separate corporations to have the same name, particularly when mergers and acquisitions occur.
If you read the 4BarsRest news item you should get the idea.
They don't share the same name. One is called Kapitol Promotions Ltd. and the other is called Kapitol Media and Events Ltd. They always were 2 separate companies, albeit with the same directors. At the risk of repeating myself Kapitol Media and Events Ltd. was sold by Philip Morris and Niki Bland to SP&S Ltd.
Philip Morris and Niki Bland still own Kapitol Promotions Ltd.
Anyway, this thread is not about who owns the two companies with similar names. It's about the Nationals rule book being sold by Besson to Kapitol Promotions Ltd.
I hope that clears it up for you, choirmaster!
The rules themselves will be protected by copyright. that is why when local contests use the National Rules (for want of a better definition) they always (or should always) say that they are used with kind permission of Besson. that will now need to be Kapitol.
As far as I am aware, Besson did not charge for that permission. Without wanting to create a hoo-ha, will Kapitol continue that trend or will they look to recoup the cost (if there was any) of buying the copyright to the rules by charging individual contests?
The BFBB could make up their own rules. However, they would need to be carefulnot to infringe what is now Kapitol's copyright. As an example, imagine a lease/ tenancy of a property. Each organisation that has their own lease enjoys copyright in that document. However, they each need to achieve the same thing i.e. to regulate the relationship between landlord and tenant. Therefore, leases tend to differ in form rather than substance.
I would expect any new Band rules to be the same i.e. they achieve the same objective but will be different in form.
Many entertainment competitions (certainly Yeovil and Wychavon) have their own rules and do not really rely upon the National Rules. Others simply adopt the National Rules as a starting point and then go on to adapt or vary certain rules.
Perhaps the real question is, if new rules were to be drafted, who would be the most appropriate national body to hold them for the benefit of the movement. It does come back to private vs. corporate ownership of competitions and the same arguments as were levied against how the All England Masters has changed will crop up again.
Whether Besson have something against bandspeople running things for themselves is beside the point. The point is that bandspeople have never shown any great interest in running their own affairs - all their interested in is the next contest and a visit to the bar afterwards. Thats why the BFBB only came into existence more than one hundred years after the birth of the activity we call banding', and the fact that this apathy continues today is reflected in the weakness of the BFBB - it doesn't have the majority of bandsmen on board, it doesn't own the national championships, and generally behaves like a bewildered pensioner at an acid house party. Lets not knock Besson when we aren't prepared to help ourselves. If it hadn't been for a succession of private businesses we wouldn't have a national championship at all. If you want to do something useful, support the BFBB.
And incidentally, I very much doubt if Besson do have anytning against bandsmen running their own affairs. It isn't as if owning the championships is exactly a gold mine for Besson.
Interesting. Makes sense to me to have everything to do with the National Championships under one umbrella. I have to say, that if I was running Besson, it would be a big driver for me to get rid of the Championships just to get rid of the bickering that there is within banding
How will this affect the registry, as that is (I understand) operated / owned by the BFBB - will the BFBB license the registry to Kapitol?
Taking a selfish view - so what does the BFBB do for my band now? Why should we pay membership fees.
Have a look at www.bfbb.co.uk for more info.
Case in point: quarterly meeting of the NW area committee last week;
Number of bands in area: 67
Number represented at the meeting: 5
You have to ask, does anyone care?
It's a bit like an election, if you don't vote, then you shouldn't whinge if someone you don't agree with gets in and does things you don't like.
Separate names with a comma.