Karaoke Forums

[quote="JoeChartreuse"][quote="HarringtonLaw"]

[b][i][u]1) [/u][/i][/b]
.....Product sold in the U.S. must be licensed for the U.S......

.....Product sold in the U.S. must be licensed for the U.S. .....


.....Product sold in the U.S. must be licensed for the U.S......


[b][i][u]2) [/u][/i][/b]..... PRS licensing does not *prohibit* distribution to the U.S. It just doesn't *authorize* distribution to the U.S.

[b][i][u]3) [/u][/i][/b]There are other ways that distribution to the U.S. could be authorized.

[/quote]


[b][i][u]1) [/u][/i][/b] Um.......

[b][i][u]2) [/u][/i][/b] That reads just the teensiest bit "slithery", doesn't it? ( Rhetorical question)

[b][i][u]3) [/u][/i][/b] [b][u]PLEASE NOTE: This is just a question on the quest for knowledge. I Just need an answer, and would prefer to skip wasted threads full of posts trying to get it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation:[/u][/b] Would you be kind enough to explain some of the other ways by which distribution in the U.S. might be authorized?[/quote]


Licensing is governed by the law of the land in which the product is distributed. The UK has devised a very easy system. PRS issues sync licenses on behalf of all publishers to the public. There is no exclusion on who may obtain these sync licenses, and the price is consistent.

In the United States, sync licenses for karaoke must be obtained through individual publishers as no such entity like the PRS exists. Normally songs have multiple songwriters each with a different publishing company. Thus to acquire licenses from all the necessary publishers in the United States can be quite time consuming especially for a large karaoke library. In the United States, for distribution in the United States, a license must be obtained from the publishers connected to a song and no other way. This is what makes legal karaoke so tricky in the United States. It will only cease to be tricky with copyright reform of some sort.

Rhetorical question or not, I don't find anything "slithery" about that.

Suppose I own a piece of land, and I rent it to you. In the lease, I say that I am giving you only the right to occupy the land described in the contract, and that I am not giving you the right to occupy any other land. You decide that you'd like to have access to an adjacent piece of land as well.

It should be pretty easy to see that you can't just go on that other land as a result of the lease you signed with me. (My lease doesn't, and maybe can't, authorize you to go on other land.)

But it should also be pretty easy to see that the mere fact that you signed a lease for my land doesn't mean that you are prohibited from signing a lease that would allow you to go onto that other land. (My lease doesn't prohibit you from going on the other land.)

PRS for Music does not AUTHORIZE distribution in the U.S. PRS for Music does not PROHIBIT distribution in the U.S. Nothing "slithery" about that at all.

i think we may have all our answers to the licensing right here. SC is becoming the "premium" subscription part, but all of the music is licensed through MCPS and was imported before the ban. now that it can not be imported again, and making a copy to another computer is considered a derivative work, Jim should know how SC is going to put hundreds or thousands (thinking positively for them) or derivative copies out there under MCPS not for U.S. licenses. he can be our rosetta stone for all this...................Jim?

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

Jim, since you posted after the above, you must have seen it, yet are ignoring it.

How would one explain making derivatives (copies) of tracks for which MCPS only gave licensing for a finite amount of copies- the discs that you imported?

In other words, you have MCPS licensing for a specific number of discs ( copies) . It seems that you will make MORE copies available through the karaoke cloud, while retaining the originals, thereby actually selling (renting) more copies than you actually have licensing for. At least that's the way it looks.

A clarification if you please?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I'm not a trained seal. I don't perform on command. I provide information when (1) I have information to provide AND (2) I'm authorized to provide it.

First of all, nothing has been decided as to whether any part of SC's catalog will be part of the Cloud. If it does occur, it will probably be part of a separate platform.

IF Digitrax and SC reach an agreement to allow delivery of SC content from a Cloud platform, the fact that SC has previously licensed content through MCPS (when its PRS for Music licenses were valid for the U.S.) will be irrelevant. Any SC tracks that are delivered from a Cloud-based platform will be licensed for that directly with the publishers by Digitrax. Only tracks for which Digitrax has or obtains licensing will be included. The existing MCPS licenses will be unaffected and will not be used for Cloud purposes.

And Digitrax will make proof of that information readily available to pro users? History has proven that the word of the manfacturer is no longer enough legal proof.

I think that will be up to Digitrax.

But what part of "history" has "proven" that the word of the manufacturer is no longer enough legal proof? Is it all those suits brought by music publishers against karaoke operators?

(It's ludicrous to expect that a music publisher would go after hundreds or thousands of defendants for copyright infringement when there is a single corporate defendant who could be blamed and sued easily, and who probably has the resources to respond to a judgment. That "sued easily" part knocks out foreign manus, of course, but we're talking about domestic companies.)

Chartbuster

Well, it's no more ludicrous than a karaoke vendor going after hundreds of KJs trying to sue for trademark infringement, instead of doing their PROPER job of making karaoke music.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

All that needs to happen is for the same KJs to find equally ambitious counsel to find a technicality to exploit and level the field in one felled swoop........hmm???

Or willing to pony up the money which could run into thousands when all said and done. Is it worth it?

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

This is why SC goes after KJs. They know KJs don't have the money to fight back. If I had that kind of money, I would INVITE a lawsuit, get the best lawyer I could find and fight SC tooth and nail, on every level possible. I would have my lawyer tie them up in court for YEARS, just to teach them a lesson. Would it be worth it?? HELL YEAH it would!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

But you nor I nor anyone else I willing to wager have that kind of expendible cash to take it all the way & 'hope' to win in an actual court case. So it's kind of moot point - I don't see it ever happening. But i'm also willing to bet that any court case would side on SC side because of TM infringement.

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

If you have enough money you can buy ANY court ruling. Look at OJ. He BOUGHT his acquittal for killing his wife. It happens all the time. The one with the most money wins. And that is why SC is doing hat they are doing. They KNOW they can win because the people they are suing don't have the money to win. If they were suing rich people, they would probably lose most of their cases and would have to ditch the whole cause. I will tell you the truth, I hope it happens to them one day. I hope they come up against someone that WILL fight them and has the resources to beat them at their own game. I don't like bullies, and that is exactly what SC has become, whether you agree or not, that IS what they have become.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

No I don't agree but then I don't see why they shouldn't be suing the people that stole from them or didn't get authorization to shift. If it were my business and people were stealing from me, damn right i'd be suing your (@$%&#!) to the wall.

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

Thieves, yes. People who just shifted, absolutely not. Those are your customers. That is bullying. Charging them to check their systems? Hell no. That's a disgusting tactic. I will be against SC as long as they are doing this crap to their paying customers.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Not trying to correct you for correction' sake, but don't you mean PAYED customers (past tense)???

so if i understand you correctly, the tracks are already made, and if Digitrax gets authorization from SC to distribute them through the cloud (or whichever manner is agreed to) then the licensing for those tracks now becomes the responsibility of Digitrax. the licensing must be paid by the ones DISTRIBUTING the tracks, not the ones MAKING them?
is that right?

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

Then don't shift? Simple. Use the discs as they were intended & don't pay anything. No bullying. You want to shift, you pay for the authorization to do so, again simple!
In my case I felt it was totally worth it. In yours, your mileage mat vary. I have thousands invested as opposed a handful of discs. There is a difference.

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