Karaoke Forums

QUESTION.. How does that work --- If say SOUNDCHOICE or other MANU at one time HAD THE RIGHTS and I purchased their "LEGALLY OBTAINED" cdg .

Am I now to NOT use them????

I would think this would only apply to future products. They can't retroactively remove permission on discs already in the field.

On the other hand, if you own any the value just went up!

I just read the entire article, and I have to agree with the writer of it. Writer is in the opinion, that by stripping usage rights, it will actually have negative effects on the sales of Madonna's, Green Day's and the Eagles cd's. And it puts them into a negative view to the fans themselves. Not that my opinion counts, but I think this is the wrong way of trying to combat piracy. I think the best way is what Taylor Swift is doing. The artists/record companies already have the backing track, why not produce a karaoke track at the same time? Maybe an encrypted disc or something, but I think if the artists and record companies can't join the 21st century, then they will suffer the losses at their own hands.

Just my opinion tho.

Absolutely correct Mr. Scott - a smart artist will not lock out a market in these times of decreased sales of physical product. TS has it figured out. Maybe the rest of them should, too, before it reflects badly on them. Of course Eagles have never been real fond of karaoke anyway.

Yep, for sure. I believe, if you can't lick 'em,,,add strawberry jam, and THEN lick 'em.. and join 'em if you add chocolate syrup...

Fortunately in the UK approval of the artist is not a requirement for karaoke (so long as the royalties are paid). This is similar to the situation in the US where no artist can prohibit another artist from doing a cover of their song (so long as royalties are paid).

The net result of these actions is that more karaoke will be moved to the UK companies (Zoom, Sunfly, SBI, STTW etc) and the US companies will suffer.

There's something I think is important to point out here regarding licensing rights - it's not specifically the artist who retains control in the US, but the songwriter (or the holder of the songwriter's publishing rights). In some cases, they are one and the same, but not always.

Also, in the case of multiple songwriters, it only takes one of them to prevent karaoke licensing for the entire song. That's the case with the Eagles (thanks for nothing, Mr. Henley). The Eagles have never been licensed for karaoke on any song for which Don Henley has a portion of the publishing rights, and that's virtually all of them.

Another example would be Garth Brooks, who at one time extended rights, then retracted them, them extended them, then retracted them again. The sole exception to this is "The Dance," and that's because he didn't write it.

The commentors who mentioned that this kind of action ultimately will negatively impact the sales of those artists are likely correct. And yes, Taylor Swift should be an example to those songwriters.

Just curious, CB. If more artists followed Taylor Swift's example and put out their own karaoke, would it give you serious competition? Or would there still be a market for single songs or discs with a variety of artists for those who didn't want the entire artist's album.

Personnaly, I think artists who don't want their songs on karaoke don't have a clue as to what music means to people and you would think being musicians, that they would.

Not at all - karaoke in general needs that kind of high-profile support, especially from artists/songwriters like Swift (with her image and great Q ratings). Aren't you sick of Simon Cowell using "karaoke" as if it were a curse word?

Even if every artist and label from now to eternity put out a karaoke version of every song, there would still be money to be made. None of the original multi-tracks exists for the extant library. No multi-tracks means you can't make karaoke without re-recording. Shucks, that's why (and how) we exist.

BTW, if you're wondering, we keep all our own multi-tracks. This has meant a great deal to us in ongoing business deals, about which I cannot say more.




I certainly think Taylor Swift does, and there are other singers and songwriters I've interviewed who do as well. Remember though, the performer isn't necessarily the rights holder.

According to a karaoke memoir I just read, the author of which interviewed a number of people at Sound Choice (there was a whole chapter about his trip to their HQ), one of the main reasons they don't get permission to make a karaoke version of a song is simply because the royalties to be made from karaoke are so small that it isn't worth the bureaucratic hassle. Take it for what it's worth.

_________________
Reward: nine yen in drawer.

No doubt about it, karaoke is probably not worth it to some big artists.

Just to pay for a few hours of lawyer time to make sure the contract is "good" and not just trust the offer from the karaoke company could cost thousands of dollars, possibly more than the royalties an artist is likely to earn from any one company.

CB, do you think that this relates to us KJs playing their music in our shows? Or was this a decision against Red Karaoke, whom doesn't seem to be an offically sanctioned (licensed) karaoke website?

I agree on all points that this is a slap in the face of the fans, and yet another g*dd****d stupid declaration of "the music isn't yours, you silly fans, but ours and we LET you listen to and enjoy it."

Green Day as a Broadway show now, so they're SOOO beyond us amateur singers who enjoy singing their music.

Good to see you on the forum CB, we needed a manufacturer to start piping in their two cents

_________________
Wam bam thank you m'am.

This is not a new thing. Zoom Karaoke had to remove 2 of their discs due to a request from the actual singer.

The singer in question, the world wide artist known as Shakin' Stevens.

This also brings up the question of songs "in the style of" when the artist who wrote the song is not the one who made it famous.


The question of royalties gets even more complex then. The artist who wrote the song clearly has the rights to the lyrics and music, but the singer/band that made it famous clearly has some control of how their name is used to promote a song....

All to often few people know who wrote the songs only who made them famous.

Interestingly on the question of Shakin' Stevens, apparently the CD has been pulled but they still sell the downloads of the songs from the zoom website. Apparently the UK laws make it more difficult to have single artist CDs for karaoke because that requires approval of the artist, however mix CDs do not have that limit.

This limit applies to custom CDs that are made in the UK as well....

I'm so sad that we won't be getting any of the Eagles new hit songs to sing.

_________________
KingBing Entertainment C'mon Up! I have a song for you!!! [font=MS Sans Serif][/font]

The question of royalties gets even more complex then. The artist who wrote the song clearly has the rights to the lyrics and music, but the singer/band that made it famous clearly has some control of how their name is used to promote a song....

Actually the aritst has the right to sell the lyrics and music - Paul McCartney sold a TON of the Beatles stuff to Michael Jackson. It is far better to establish your own publishing company, as well, if you are a singer songwriter because the publisher makes a goodly percentage off every song they hold in their possession. It's all in the art of the deal at that point.

Actually, the artist only has the right to sell the lyrics and the music IF they :
a) wrote it themselves
Or
b) purchased it from the legal owner
Paul McCartney was the legal owner as well as the author of those songs.
Someone like Whitney Houston, for example, who only sang "I will Always Love You", does NOT have any right to sell the song. Only the legal owner, Dolly Parton (who also happened to write it) has that right.

One more, that they didn't sell or give the rights to a third party such as Piano Man written and performed by Billy Joel.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

For what my opinion is worth (the company has no official position on this matter), I think the decision, like most in the industry, is purely motivated by profit. I don't understand the reasoning, but I do recognize it.



The pleasure is mine, and thank you for the warm welcome.