Karaoke Forums

Do you have a statute that proclaims that in so many words?

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

17 U.S.C. § 106 sets out the exclusive rights of a copyright owner, including adaptation (preparation of derivative works, of which a karaoke track is one) and distribution. That provision gives copyright owners the right to set the terms under which they will permit others to adapt (make karaoke tracks) and distribute (transfer those tracks to others) their works. There are some limitations on those rights governing specific situations, but none of those apply in this situation.

And why, pray tell, would this be any different for karaoke tracks than music tracks? No one seriously suggests that legally downloaded music tracks cannot be played by DJs.

If your answer is that this is something that must be individually negotiated, we now see why we have a piracy problem. No one is going to take the trouble to individually negotiate this stuff. We need it spelled out in law. Right now it is ambiguous. And no one in the music industry seems to be moving to work to make it non-ambiguous. They all are trying to buy bigger hammers.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

@ Harrington

so what of the claim that a download is not an original work so licensing is now the problem of the recipient? i disagree with this statement, but perhaps you have something there that shows it is just another method of delivery.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Music tracks (what the copyright law refers to as "sound recordings") are legally different from karaoke tracks (which are "audiovisual works") in two specific ways and substantively different in yet a third way.

First, there is no public performance right in sound recordings. I can download a copy (even a pirated copy) of a sound recording and play it from my boom box on the front steps of my row house or in the subway, and the owner of the sound recording can't do anything to stop me--even if I do it for money. By contrast, karaoke tracks, as A/V works, *are* the subject of a public performance right.

Second, as long as the underlying musical work (what you might refer to as the "words and music") has been published (such as by being released by a recording artist), anyone can make and distribute their own recording of that work, and the owner of the underlying musical work can't do anything about it as long as the mechanical license fee has been paid. (That's the so-called "Harry Fox" license, named after the agency that administers all of those rights in the U.S., by agreement of the stakeholders.) Karaoke tracks do get a Harry Fox license, but there is also a synchronization license that must be obtained from the publisher--and that must be negotiated. Since the publisher can say no, they can dictate the terms for the whole deal.

Third--and this is a substantive difference, not a legal one--there is a public performance right in the underlying musical work (not the sound recording expressing it), but virtually all publishers of popular music are represented by BMI, ASCAP, or SESAC, all of which offer "blanket" licenses for the use of the works they represent. The music publishers usually find that it is more profitable to let those groups administer their rights in a blanket fashion than to have to take that function in-house and deal with hundreds of thousands of licensees who want to use their music. There is no analogous agency for karaoke.



I'm not unsympathetic to your view, but you have to understand that the music publishers can easily say no to licensing their works for karaoke. That gives them enormous power to set the terms of the agreement. The music publishers aren't opposed to downloading, but they have historically sought to charge a premium to offset what they believe is inevitable unreported copying. Their reasoning was good if naive. I think their attitudes are changing, but, as the song says, it takes a little time, sometimes, to get the Titanic turned back around. (And now I've managed to create an Amy Grant earworm for myself.)

You would think, such legal rulings would apply in unilateral ways, rather than in arbitrary ones, as well as situations of past practice. Isn't that what law's about, digging up past cases, and seeing what was ruled in previous, similar cases?

I actually haven't even discussed the case law in this thread. A huge portion of the copyright law is statutory (i.e., laws passed by Congress) because the Constitution gives Congress the power to write the copyright laws. (Article 1, Section 8, clause 8.) Case law is important for interpretation, but the fact that Congress has treated different aspects of copyright differently somewhat ties the courts' hands.

You'd think law would be like a science......I think it's been designed to be ambiguous......just a bunch of opinions. You get nine of the supposedly best legal minds on the nations top court, and if there were only eight, we'd almost never get a ruling........ frustrating for a Lay Peeps like me......carry on my wayward lawer.... ....I mean lawyer

I am glad you see this.

I believe in the rights, which is why I am a legal host. I have spent many thousands of dollars on music, even though I don't really do it professionally. I host a show probably 10 times a year these days, and my music cost has been well over a hundred dollars for every show I have ever hosted. I most recently bought the KJ Media Pro drive so I would have a good selection while still being legal. *That* is the kind of facility that makes it possible for people like me to do this stuff.

So while I am legal and have contributed many dollars to the manufacturers, I do have sympathy for the people who are frustrated by the industry. I also resent the fact that the music and movie publishing industry have paid off Congress to over double copyright terms while working to subvert our legal process with attempts at laws like SOPA. This type of underhanded effort, combined with the obvious failure to provide many solutions like the KJ Media Pro drive, means that people resent the industry. And that resentment, to my mind, has a lot of basis.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Distribution via compact disc without a license is also illegal. Distribution via any method would be illegal without proper licensing. Obtaining the appropriate licenses to distribute their goods is something expected of all manufacturers and distributors whatever their means of distribution.

Since licensing agreements are tightly held trade secrets in the industry, all we can do as consumers is trust the word of the manufacturer and distributor that their proper licensing is in place until a party to that licensing agreement or lack thereof comes forth to claim otherwise.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Earthling
up until now there has been no one saying there even is a license to offer downloads (but many saying there aren't)
now this is good info. pay for the tracks, download, let them take the fall if they lied.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

The only problem is that they won't take the fall. I'll be hit with an audit, and Sound Choice nor anyone else will tell me in advance what will happen with my downloaded Zoom, SBI, and Sunfly tracks. They'll hold it over my head to intimidate me. The person who should be their treasured customer has to walk in fear of their capricious legal action.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Hmmmm.
Harrington, just how much should we trust the manu's?

A long long time ago there used to be an inference that corporate companies behaved beyond reproach.
In reality they can be the biggest thieves, liars and tricksters on planet earth.
As a way of obtaining the nice things in life you look destined to defend such companies.

We are all aware that to manipulate the law as you are expected to do, there may be occasion for you to be slightly less than totally honest.
I am assuming that you have not yet learnt the ways of the dark side.
Had you that much experience you would never have been thrown to us wolves.

If you would be so good...
Please tell us why we should believe what you tell us.

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/view ... 0honest%22

I tend to go with Harrington as there have been companies in the past who have come on here to say their downloads are legal for shows then pulled that permission off of their websites. All Star comes to mind as the latest. And Tricerasoft, who said that they had indeed negotiated individual licenses with each rights holder never did answer as to how they got the Eagles to come round.......Some of the suppliers outside of the US are now putting up disclaimers about how their tracks must be used according to the laws of each country.

We are in the strange position of being held accountable for following laws on using music without having proof of which manus are following the laws when they sell to us. Most people rely on "good faith" when purchasing discs from major suppliers but when a site says "home use only" on a download or "must be used within the laws of your country" that would be harder to claim, would it not?

Sound Choice does not audit for other companies, so you don't have to worry about SC holding that over your head. (Really, we don't intimidate people, at least not intentionally. The people who deal with us generally find us to be pleasant to work with.)

The problem with relying on a statement from a non-U.S. manu is that you really don't have any effective recourse if they lie to you. You could try to sue them here, but chances are they are not going to be subject to personal jurisdiction, or even if they are, they probably don't have any U.S.-based assets to go after. So you are going to have to go outside the U.S. to pursue them even if you manage to get a judgment.

I had previously indicated here that we had started requiring settling KJs to delete pirated content from manus other than SC. (Our proposed judgment language, which has yet to be rejected by any judge we've submitted it to, is more restrictive than what appears below.) The voluntary settlement language regarding destruction of pirated tracks is as follows:



That language gives you five mechanisms for having a media-shifted track on your hard drive: the HD being the original medium, 1:1 correspondence, lawful electronic distribution, manu authorization, and public domain. As we interpret it, downloaded tracks from a foreign manu will fit under (d) if the possession is authorized in writing (such as by a "Terms of Use" document), and (c) if the commercial use is authorized. Since mere possession of an infringing article is not a copyright infringement, as a practical matter, this would allow downloaded tracks under our settlement agreement.

This probably doesn't really answer your question, but it will hopefully keep you from worrying about at least some potential problems.

That simple statement, which i had not heard before, makes me feel better. I have nothing to fear, then. My gray areas have to do with a couple hundred ZOOM/SBI/Sunfly tracks downloaded from Tricerasoft, and one or two custom-made from backing tracks. (Not redistributed, of course.)


That is the part I heard before, which meant to me that you were policing others. I have no "pirated tracks". But the language is far from clear.


It does help. But this last part seems like a grave overreach. If you didn't do that, it would seem much less intimidating.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

We're not policing the use of others' marks. Every manu is able, even in the context of our efforts, to control their own policies. What we're trying to put a stop to is the piracy of other manus' materials, and here's why:

If I sue a KJ who has 110,000 tracks, all pirated, and I only make him dump the pirated SC and load the GEM series, then he is down to maybe 95,000 tracks and has lost access to maybe a couple of hundred tracks that SC made that nobody else ever has--and those aren't played that often anyway. That's not helpful to the market.

On the other hand, if I make him dump all of his pirated material, he is down to around 5,000 legit tracks--and he's going to have to buy anything else he wants from SC or other manus, just like anyone else starting out.

It is simply a question of leveling the playing field for legit hosts. We didn't always do this, but we developed this arrangement in response to concerns from legit KJs who have 20,000 or 30,000 tracks, with an investment of tens of thousands of dollars, having to compete with a guy who has 95,000 tracks, still 80% pirated, but with a stamp of approval from the only manu who is actively policing the market.



I do want to be clear that the language I quoted is from a post-suit settlement, not from any audit. In a voluntary (pre-suit) audit, we do not look at the materials from other manus. We of course recommend that you dump any unlicensed material you have, regardless of the manu, but it's not something we enforce. You run the risk that someone else will enforce it, however.

There's the intimidation I talked about. "Submit to our pre-suit audit, or we'll REALLY ream you." I don't need that kind of aggravation, and it doesn't make sense for me to subject myself to such things for a business which would be an occasional thing if at all. Which is why I will have to eat the $10,000 I spent on music and not reap any significant benefit.

So I am left with a bad taste in my mouth. Multiply that by several million people who bought albums and music they can't feel good about using, and you have the state of the music industry today.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

No, we're not saying that at all.

Whether we do a pre-suit audit or a post-suit audit, we're still not looking at your non-SC materials. If you are 1:1 with SC, but unaudited, and you happen to get sued, then simply submit to the post-suit audit. We will verify your 1:1 status (with a 2% tolerance), and--assuming that you pass--you'll get dismissed from the suit. There is no settlement agreement in that situation--it's just an outright dismissal.

IF you have pirated SC material--i.e., you're not 1:1 with SC--and choose to settle, only then will the settlement agreement require you to remove unauthorized material from other manus. If you are 1:1 with SC, you have nothing to worry about.

Does that improve the taste in your mouth?

It does. Clarification always does - things are rarely as bad as you fear. You have developed a certain credibility here, so I think you are doing your cause some good by doing that.

Which points up the problem with the industry in general. There isn't a lot of clarification going on, and there are very few unambiguous statements being made. There can't be -- we haven't clarified the law and it is all subject to interpretation and change.

My point of view is still that the music industry has done a lousy job for decades. It had its head in the sand to begin with. Then when it began to be stung by the very spectres people told them they would have to deal with, they reacted by doubling down on their insistence on sellng CDs. When CD sales cratered, they started suing people out of impotent rage and grudgingly started legal MP3 downloads. Now that they have finally accepted that they aren't going to be able to sell a whole album on the back of one hit song, they are ignoring their chance to clarify law so that they can exploit upcoming content opportunities. Such as selling and marketing karaoke tracks mainstream, perhaps promoted on AI and other programs to augment the revenue they get from MP3 downloads. It's insane that they stay so far behind the curve, all while infuriating their customer base instead of wooing it.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.