Karaoke Forums

EMI is claiming that the tracks were used beyond the license obtained. so even in the UK where they were licensed, they would not be legal as the claim is that the license obtained was not sufficient for the current use. but this is only if SC loses the battle, if they win then it is business as usual.


the publishers are making it hard for SC (apparently only them) to make new music requiring more form SC than other manus. reasons for that we will never know, only speculate.

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

Do you know that for a fact? All we really know (stated here from James Harrington), is that the publishers are asking for specific rights in their contracts which SC does not want to agree to. Do you know whether or not these publishers' demands are specific to SC and not to the other manus out there? Maybe the other manus were offered the same terms, and they were willing to agree to them in order to put out new tracks.

according to the DTE contract that was posted a few months ago (http://karaokescene.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28980&hilit=sample+contract) they are not asking for full control and rights to the DTE re-recordings as they are with SC.

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

According to Mr. Harrington, there may be more than was provided from that link to DTE's sample contract. Plus, that looks like a contract that DTE wrote, not the Publishers. Wouldn't the Publishers have their own contract drawn up for business transactions such as this? If not, why would SC write up their own contract that would have disagreeable terms to themselves written up in it? Does anyone know if there is a separate contract for them (DTE) that the Publishers may have written (from what James described in the other topic thread)?

Remember PHM has been having trouble putting out the songs they want, also. There has also been a bit of a lag in how quickly All Star has been getting new songs. They were going great guns there for a while then it tapered off. It doesn't seem to be just an SC problem.

I wonder if the copyright owners are fed up with the monkey motion after they
assign permission for karaoke.

I've thought about that. It CAN'T help when someone else is blacking the eye of something you ultimately own the rights to, when you yourself take a position of biting your upper lip for the sake of PR. This may well be the publishers way of putting an end to it. TOTAL Speculation on my part. Not even speculation, just a general thought in that direction.

Let's face it, the publishers aren't any better so there HAS to be some sort of reasoning for not making the bucks the manus are willing to pay.

Maybe the recording artists are tired of hearing their songs slaughtered in bars every night. Not sure how much an artist makes on a song but maybe the profit isn't enough to matter. Some artistic folks have funny ideas about stuff I've noticed. The No Fly list is growing.

The artists may not like it, but if they don't own the Copyright, there's not much they can do.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I think the song writers with clout can get their stuff on the no fly list as part of their contract.

I'm fairly certain that whatever is going on regarding slow output is pretty much EMI on their own- though a couple of little birds may be tweeting in their ear....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

It has been some time since EMI requested the injunction against SC's GEM series, does anyone know if the injunction has been granted, or is it tied to the settling of the case and the final verdict? I mean it is possible to get a temporary injunction pending the out come of the trial isn't it?

Although EMI included a standard injunction request in its complaint, it has not filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and no injunctive relief has been granted.

It is possible to obtain a preliminary injunction, but that requires a showing of (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of the case, (2) the probability of irreparable harm if the conduct continues, (3) that the equities, on balance, favor granting the injunction (i.e., it is more fair to grant the injunction than to await the outcome of the case), and (4) that the public interest favors an injunction. In recent years, it has become more difficult to obtain preliminary injunctions because the Supreme Court, in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, took away the presumptions favoring injunctions in intellectual property cases.

I have never understood this line of thinking. Are the artists afraid someone will mistake a karaoke singer as them?! And what artists go to karaoke bars anyway? Seriously, what harm is their to the songwriter if someone sings their song? All it does is bring attention to it and might even sell a few copies. I've heard people sing a song at a karaoke bar that I had completely forgot about, then went and bought it the next day.

(not aimed at you rickgood, but these prima donna artists)

Agree Bazza. If anything it may remind people about something they haven't heard in a while and compel them to go buy it, in which they may not have otherwise if they didn't hear it at karaoke.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Agree Bazza. Maybe they think it won't help them sell any more copies. If I recorded a song I'd want everybody in the damn world to sing it. I don't see the logic of the no fly list at all unless it leads to more illegal downloads?

Guys with all due respect an artist doesn't think or see things the ways other people do. They march to the beat of their own drum, that is what sets them apart from others. Just like the French chef that pulls out the clever, if you try to put ketchup on the steak he has prepared. Creating something original is what the true artist strives for. it is his or her vision. That is why most artists are very poor during their life time, and usually the price of their art doesn't really go up until unfortunately they are dead. There a few exceptions that knew how to market and made money while they were still alive. Some don't care if someone paints a copy of their work, others find it disrespectful. Sort of like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

March to the beat of a different drummer, maybe..

But you can bet 99.9% of the reasoning behind the no fly list is money. Others (karaoke manus) are remaking their works and selling it. The license fee paid by the manus mostly (all?) goes to the publishers where they probably do have incentives tied to their own track sales. They get a small kick from pro fees from bars but nothing from radio, which is probably their biggest return aside from concerts. I bet the thinking is, why should I let someone else make mula off my work while I'll get next to nothing. Then you have artists that have thought about this and are being pro active (Taylor Swift)

It HAS to be about money.

I'm not saying it is not about money Mr.Boo, but as far a karaoke is concerned it is on the bottom rung of the entertainment ladder. That is why the artist doesn't feel they are losing much by having a no fly list. One thing that really surprises me is all this fuss of pirate karaoke, and nobody ever talks about pirate DJ's. I would think there are just as many of them, and they would be harder to detect since no logo is displayed while they spin the discs. It would seem to me DJ's would also be hard pressed by illegal competition, but they don't seem to complain as much as karaoke hosts, why?

People say karaoke is the "bottom rung of the ladder" But is it really? I think karaoke is big enough now to get noticed and it's not a fad that's going away.