Karaoke Forums

I'm thinking there is a lot of grey area here...

Legal? Well....perhaps technically. Right? Depends who you ask. I'm guessing you'd get a different answer if you asked the Eagles than if you asked Sound Choice.

Just because they found a loophole that allowed them to circumvent US licensing altogether doesn't make it right.

Birdofsong

_________________
Birdofsong

Let's all backtrack a minute here.

The US laws suck. They make karaoke unnecessarily expensive and too restrictive to produce thanks to it's inclusion under the definition of Sync.

If Karaoke wasn't considered sync (and every tom dick and harry couldn't come asking for a piece) then the manu's wouldn't be forced to seek foreign licenses, that let them do things like offer legal downloads.

I don't believe they circumvented anything since they were not told no beforehand (again according to them in posts from YEARS ago), they were told no - yes after the fact but were doing what they were doing until that point - and pulled the disc when they were told no. Again, no one here on this board is qualified to give legal advice (hence this forum) since no one is specialized in IP legalities and nothing more than what they believe.

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

Lonnie, I'm not talking about years ago. I'm talking about what they're doing right now with the GEM Series. And you're right, it's only an opinion. But then again, I'm not putting a disclaimer after yours.

_________________
Birdofsong

The sync license for A-V products is required overseas too.

And, sometimes every Tom, Dick and Harry is legally due a piece. Let's take the Eagles tune, "Take it Easy" for an example.

Jackson Browne (who wasn't an Eagles member) and Randy Meisner co-wrote the song. They split the songwriter royalties and the publishing 50/50 right?

Well . . . part of the publishing was assigned to their respective record labels so they each get a chunk of that too.

. . . and the members of the Eagles made a substantial contribution to their recording, which mean they all get a chunk of the mechanicals, performance and sync licensing . . . and so does their label for making it all possible for an agreed upon percentage.

. . . same goes for the members of Jackson Browne's band.

Sooooooo . . . you've got about 15-20 different parties all legally due a piece of that one song.

_________________
Dave's not here.

The thing is those tracks are sold in Australia and every single one that is purchased the licensing is included in the cost of the track. I don't claim to know anything about import laws but as far as I'm concerned the rights holders got there money, i paid for those tracks I am damn well going to use them.

If someone wants to come after me for that, let them try and prove damages, there are none.

-James

The difference from my understanding of UK and Australian laws is yes royalties must be paid. BUT they are at a set rate.

In the US the artist that wrote the song can decide what rate to charge or none at all. SO the Eagles could have let SC make the disk 8125 at $0.15 royalties a copy or $1,000,000 royalties a copy. The US laws make the artist able to charge WHATEVER they want to for the SYNC righs. A cover version without sync rights (a regular old "cover" is handled by a different fee and that is only a few pennies a song, and can NOT be prevented from being made by the original artist.

In the UK and Australia SYNC and cover rights are at a set rate per song copy and the artist is not required to approve of the song being made and no direct negotiaton is needed between the Karaoke Manu and the Artist. The karaoke company just has to pay a central company (like BMI) and that central company then pays the artists for the cover versions made into karaoke.

Because the artist must be identified, tracked down and made sign a legally binding contract in US law is why so much Karaoke is no longer made in the US. For older bands where the artists are no longer active or possibly even alive I am sure that the effort to track down and contact the artist (or owner of the song rights) may cost more to the Karaoke company than the royalties paid.

don't know if that's really true, but it sounds logical to me and a good explanation of the inner workings if it is true.

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

Not really true. The karaoke manufacturer needs to contact the entity that is "in control" of the work which might be the artist (or writer) but is most likely the publisher. One tactic of manufacturers is to locate an old, invalid address of a publisher that no longer represents an artist or song. Mail a certified request to that company at the defunct address and it will be returned to you, then simply file it, make your song and claim: "See? We tried!"

I've found a number of publishers and artists in 5 mins. on the net and sent an email to verify whether or not their songs have been licensed. You'd be amazed at how many are still not licensed.

The absence of an explicit "no" does not mean "yes."

And, you are fully aware that manufacturers have to have a license (an explicit "yes") BEFORE selling any karaoke discs. The manufacturers are -and always have been - aware of that too but that didn't stop them from ignoring it. . . pirating songs hundreds of times over a number of years and making millions in the process.

I'm not buying any manufacturer's story of any permission given verbally in a phone call.

The US is the only signatory of the Berne and Universal Copyright conventions that implements a compulsory license, and that's ONLY for mechanical rights. The US compulsory mechanicals can be, and quite often are, superseded by a private licensing agreement.

The compulsory mechanicals work to the disadvantage of the rights holder by effectively setting a maximum rate for a mechanicals license. That situation does NOT exist in other Berne convention countries, where ALL licensing rates are set by the rights holder. What DOES exist is licensing agencies that will "broker" the licensing agreements at a published rate as a convenience to both the rights holder and the licensee. In some countries, like the UK currently, these licenses may have restrictions in territory or scope placed upon them by the rights holders, with the intent of requiring a higher price and direct negotiation for "broader" rights

Here's an EXCELLENT interview that gives an overview of how music is "cleared" for AV use: http://www.get-it-all.net/indie27-Tips_ ... Movies.htm

_________________
Dave's not here.

The UK laws may not have an explicit maximum rate but it basically says that so long as you pay the fee to MCPS you are free to make a karaoke version of a song.

There is the additional problem that no more than 5 songs from an artist may be on a disc without prior approval of the artist (so SC8125 may still be illegal under UK law).

There is nothing however in UK law preventing the songs on SC8125 for example from being mixed with other artist's songs on 3-4 separate CDs and then being sold.

In the US an artist can just say "NO" to karaoke, and their songs cant be made into karaoke versions. Or they can just make the cost unreasonable.

https://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollect ... RTandC.pdf

It appears that MCPS covers all artists.

Um, so what brands would you say didn't put out unlicensed music? Certainly not CB or SC. or they would never have been sued, right?

SKID:As for SC8125: Um, no they NEVER had a LEGAL deal to put it out. Kurt CLAIMS that they had a VERBAL agreement, but even if that were true, it's meaningless, and SC put it out without any written authority. SC2163 and SC8438 are a couple of other "oopses", and more where that came from....

My singers prefer DK for those songs available on them, then SuperCore, then Zoom, though my Oldies folks hang in with MM. Yes, country folks prefer CB- and with good reason, but the country boom in my area is slowly fading, and any newer stuff I buy is now usually SuperCore's All Country series- not CB's equal, but very good- and acceptable by the dwindling country crowd here.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

According to when BC (studio manager) was working there and posting on the SC forum, he said they never had any agreement. They created & put out discs with licensing requests put in proper channels which they normally recieved. The Eagles disc was the first one they were told no to & immediately pulled it from the market.
There were also the discs that licensing got pulled (Alanis Morissette and Garth Brooks good examples) or expired for which they needed to pull those songs or discs entirely.

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

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''


I guess that isn't a wrong answer however expect to pay $150 to $225 on eBay.

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

As has been said in other threads . . .

The MCPS license now has territorial restrictions. This is why Zoom, Sunfly and other UK manufacturers are licensing direct now, and why Tricerasoft is heading in that direction. They want to continue distributing worldwide.

I might add that there's nothing preventing any US manufacturer from doing exactly the same.

I think there's a group of people on here that don't understand one fundamental concept of IP laws, which is this: Copyright laws don't forbid any uses of IP. Copyright laws don't forbid any type of distribution of IP. What they DO forbid. except in certain, very limited cases, is the USE or distribution of IP in any way without the express permission of the owner.

If you have the written permission (that's a license, y'all!) of the owner to use a work in a defined way, or distribute a work in specified areas using defined methods, then what you're doing is legal. The law does not, in fact CAN not prevent it from happening.

_________________
Dave's not here.

All 4 major karaoke manufacturers in the US have been sued for copyright infringement. All of them have serial violations of the law on easily accessible public record.

In contrast, I've been totally unable to dig up any hint of a violation from Zoom, Sunfly or Tricerasoft.

I'd say DON'T buy American in this case.

_________________
Dave's not here.

People are out of work, the economy sucks, and you say "Don't buy American". Well now, isn't that nice.

_________________
My first choice IS Sound Choice.

...And this is exactly why downloads can't be used in a U.S. show. No blanket permission ( license) from the owners available. If you want it, you have to hunt them down yourself- for each and every track.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

You act like that's an impossible task.

Joe . . . here's a learning exercise for you (and anyone else who cares to try it):
Here's a link to the Billboard hot 100. Pick any 15 songs from here.

Here's a link to the ASCAP ACE Title Search

Here's a link to the BMI Repertoire Search

Here's a link to the SESAC Repertory Search.

Why don't you look up your 15 chosen songs and tell us how long it took, you on average per song, to find the rights owners and contact info for them?

Also, let us know difficult you found it.

Hint: Billboard lists songwriter info if you click on the title. Sometimes it's faster to search by songwriter.

_________________
Dave's not here.