Karaoke Forums

Anyone have an idea on how the law handles a situation where a buyer buys an item (say a Karaoke song) in good faith beliveing it to be a legit legal copy. But it turns out the seller was less than fully legal.

Is the illegal seller responsible for returning the purchase price to the buyer?

Is the buyer just going to have to eat the costs, and suffer any penalties for the use of the song.

If that copy turns out to be illegal who is responsible?


This opens a huge bag of worms for karaoke. It goes from the obvious 500$ hard drives where any reasonable person should know they are stolen, to the "out of print manus" that may (or may not) have been fully legit. Or even buying a bunch of used CDs (which may have been physically stolen the old fashoned way).

It also goes as far as individual songs that may have been produced without the appropriate rights by the Karaoke manus. Many of the karaoke manu companies have had their own legal problems. Is it my responsiblity as a KJ to make sure that I remove such songs that are not "legal" from my song list and obtain refunds from the karaoke manu? I seriously doubt any KJs go to that extreme, but it is just another point of arguement.

I just want to say that while I have purchased all of my songs at prices that are possibly legit, of couse I try to spend as little as possible like any buyer. Since I have purchased songs from 30+ different sources over the years, it is just about a given that probably something is illegal, without my knowledge.

I bet that many KJs are in a similar situation. Despite a best effort to be legal, it is difficult to be 100% sure, especially with realistic looking copies of the disks themsleves being sold illegally.

What we have is an industry where there are the obvious criminals, and those that attempt to follow the law. The problem is however that under careful examination faults can be found among the "good guys". I really don't want an industry where the only way to prove your innoncence is to purchase all of you songs direct from a single company or two that has been fully investigated.

It's no different if you buy what you think is a designer handbag or outfit, only to find it's a knockoff... some are so good only an expert can tell you.

I buy cdgs. If I see one's a burn or obvious copy, I contact the person I bought them from and demand reparation. Once I know and trust a seller, then I buy more in bulk (back when I did a lot of buying)...

But no, if I buy a cdg from a retailer, I'm not about to find out if the cdg was made with all the legal licensing. Thats THEIR job.

Badda-bing. If I go to Wal-Mart and buy a party tyme disc, its is 100% not my responsibility to make sure THEY have all their ducks in a row as far as licensing goes. That's what I paid for when I bought the disc.

_________________
Good music, good friends, howling good times!

I would argue that this is not correct.

Consider buying stolen goods. Even though you bought them in good faith, i.e. you truly believed the items were legal, you must still return them when they are proven to be stolen. You can sue the seller, to be sure. But you still have to give the item back.

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

Stolen is totally different than an illegally made disc. You're comparing apples to oranges. Yes it's all fruit, but of a whole other variety.

When I go to a proven online retailer or store if you can find them that carry them, that RECEIPT is all the proof I need. It's on the retailer's head to make it right.

We are talking copyright infringement not larceny, which are two completely different areas of the law. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm aware of the law. You are comparing apples and oranges Mick. In order to sue for copyright infringement you have to show how the use of the copyrighted materiel jeopardizes your exclusivity to the intellectual property in question.

Look at it this way. Who's going to file the lawsuit, under what provision? Not the disc manu who violated the law to begin with. Not the copyright holder either, as the venue has already paid the license fee to play the song! One would be hard pressed to show a loss there for playing a song by an artist for which a fee has already been collected. The only place they legitimately could claim a loss would be with the manu for not paying the appropriate fee to produce the track to begin with.

Get it?

_________________
Good music, good friends, howling good times!

No, I don't get it. And I don't like being patronized, either.

You fail to mention the sync rights and the mechanical rights, which is why being a karaoke manufacturer in the United States is such a pain in the butt, and why many aspects of it have moved overseas.

Now I am not sure anyone *is* going to file a lawsuit, but they easily could. If the mechanical rights were not paid for, as they definitely aren't when you buy a set of SGB disks for $14.99, there is even a lot of legal precedent. In other words, the songwriter could join a suit.

My point is that possession and legality of property in the United States is not governed by the intention of the buyer. You have no protection, and remain just as subject to judgement as you would be if you had made your own recording and lyrics swipes and sold them to others.

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

Oh, Mick... sometimes!

You said you would "argue" otherwise. I stated in direct legal terms an opposition to your agrument. How is that patronizing?

Intent and possession have NO correlation in the law... especially in a CIVIL matter.

Intent only applies to criminality, and is the basis for all Western law since the Magna Carta. Western laws on possession are even older, hence the term 9/10 or 90% of the law. I possess it, therefore I own it.

And no, the Songwriter could NOT sue if his interests are represented by someone else... say BMI or ASCAP. If he does sue then he's going to have to handle ALL copyright infringements himself and forgo the protection of the organizations he's hired to protect is interests. WHY ON EARTH WOULD HE DO THAT??

Intellectual property and physical property are handled completely differently under the law. When you use physical property analogies to explain intellectual property rights you miss the point completely!

When was the last time you had to sue someone to retain ownership of your car???

Yes, anyone can "easily" file a lawsuit, but most won't if there isn't a good chance they could win.

One of the KEY words that underscores English law is REASONABLE. If your walking down the street and a guy tries to sell you a gold necklace for $5 would a reasonable person suspect the property would be stolen... The answer is YES, and you not only would have to give the necklace back, but you could be charged with trafficking in stolen merchandise. You simply could not argue "lack of intent" here because of "reason" in the law.

Now, if you walk into a WalMart and buy a packaged karaoke disk, would a reasonable person assume they have the right to use the disk??? Of course they would... Civil law is about LOSS and recovery, and the responsible party for the loss from the consumer's purchase and playing of the disc does not reside with the consumer here, it resides with the manufacturer of the disc for any losses incurred from the production and selling of the music. That's where your argument falls short, Mick.

I can play "Pink Houses" from X manu who is legal, or Y who is not. I purchased the disk with a reasonable expectation that the disc was legally produced, so you simply can not win a lawsuit against me for piracy here. The retailer? possibly, but they may have also been duped. The manu? Absolutely.

The is another aspect of English law that may also apply here. "Undue Burden".

All I would have to do is place my stack of hundreds of Commercially produced discs in front of the plaintiff and ask him to please tell me which disks have correct licenses and which do not. You simply can't. How is the average consumer going determine such a thing on a commercially produced disc that clearly states on the label that they have the rights to produce the disc??? I paid my $14.99 with a reasonable expectation that I could use the disc. Somewhere in that $14.99 is the money the copyright holder should have received... Who got the $14.99??

Please tell me how I'm suppose to keep up with that? Is it even REASONABLE to expect me to do so? The answer to this question is best left open... and it benefits the copyright holders not to push it.

I didn't mention the sync rights and mechanical rights because they have nothing to do with the argument at hand. We already said the manu failed to get the rights to the disc, the argument is whether or not I can I play a commercially produced disc that clearly states that the disc is legal?

If the meat of your argument is that "anyone can sue", you're certainly right. However, that's patronizing at best, because no one sues unless they think they have a chance to recover losses, and here its apparent that the person responsible for the loss is the commercial manu, not the KJ!

_________________
Good music, good friends, howling good times!

When you say "Get it?" as if you are talking to a dolt.


Which they are not when it comes to mechanical or sync rights. Sync rights have to be individually negotiated, which is what makes karaoke such a pain. Mechanical is statutory, and is due to the songwriter direct.


All that is true *if the consumer then destroys the disk when they become aware of it*. If they don't, there is a presumption of the ability to transfer possession.

[snip interesting but not pertinent discussion]


If you are talking about a suit already in progress, when interested parties like the songwiter were already represented, you could in another particular of the suit easily be sued for playing material that is not legally licensed. That is whether or not you have a CD in hand. It is no different in effect than burning your own fake copy of a Sound Choice disk from a downloaded song.

Just don't think you are necessarily protected simply because you purchased a disk from someone. Sound Choice and the songwriter could easily argue for economic damage due to loss of business because of the purchase of alternative unlicensed material.

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

I'm not going quote the entire thing.

Destroy a disc "after I become aware of it?" Whose going to compensate me for my loss??? Never happening. I made a legal consumer purchase, and have a good faith expectation to use a product I've paid for. The money is in the hands of the retailer, go there to recover your loss. Done.

If I get sued Mick, I'll certainly post it here as it will be a landmark case as no KJ has EVER been sued over this as it would be completely illogical. EVER.

As for "Get it?", it certainly wasn't meant like you took it. Tone is difficult to convey in text, hence the smiley . Don't be so sensitive! And I'm sorry... cool?

.... And is completely different that if I purchased a harddrive off Craigslist. In this case I, the consumer, have technically been defrauded. You don't sue the victim of a fraud to recover your loss Mick. I am not responsible for the loss! Sound Choice may have a case of "unfair trade practices" against the manufacturer of the illegal disk, but they have no case against me as they don't own the copyright.

A guy goes into a store and buys a karaoke disk and gets sued because he plays it? Can you imagine how that would affect an already struggling karaoke industry?? That's insanity! They would put themselves out of business! Ack!

_________________
Good music, good friends, howling good times!

Well said!
This is exactly why all the Panorama Top Hits Monthly discs are legal to play, as well as the notorious Sound Choice Eagles disc. If those discs were bought from the manufacturer, or their authorized retailers, then they ARE legal to keep and play.

Edit: The purchase of used discs also applies here as the assumption is that they were originally purchased with the REASONABLE expectation that they would be legal to keep and play.
Trying to force someone to destroy discs they purchased legally with the reasonable expectation they would be able to play them would NEVER happen. That would be akin to asking all owners of a used car model to destroy their cars and not resell them if a manufacturer decided that they were no longer going to produce that particular model. (I know, it's not EXACTLY a good analogy, but I think you get my drift).

Surely you jest. You have not been defrauded, no more than somebody who buys a brand new Ferrari for a quarter of the cost. In cases like this, both parties can be charged.

Yes it is reasonable to believe what you buy at a legitimate are legitimate goods where there is a control involved via the purchasers for the company. E-bay and Craig's List are a completely different kettle of fish. They are more like virtual flea markets and we all know there are quite a few "hot" items avilable.

And remember the Copyright Act has both criminal and civil remedies.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I jest not.

And yes there are both Criminal and Civil PENALTIES. However, if you wish to pursue CRIMINAL prosecution you must prove INTENT to circumvent copyright... Me, walking into a retail store to purchase a music discs proves just the opposite... that I intended to pay for the right to use the music. So criminality does not apply.

To pursue a CIVIL action you must show a loss through the copyright infringement.

In this case, you could certainly show a loss through the manufacturer who failed to acquire the proper copyright, thus there's where the lawsuit resides.

And I have already more than adequately addressed WHY there is no cause to sue a disc purchaser here in my previous post.

_________________
Good music, good friends, howling good times!

I think some folks have missed a very important part of the copyright law or more importantly lawsuits brought under it. Take a look at the documentation about the current KJ and Bar litigation in Arizona and you'll notice the word "Willful" in all the claims. That is a very important word because it is part of the prosecution's burden in the suit. They must prove that you willfully infringed on the copyright. I believe in most cases, a failure to take reasonable precautions can be sufficient to prove willful violation but it does protect folks that make a good faith effort.

As far as who owes what, if you bought something that someone claimed was legally licensed and it turns out not to be, you'll have to forfeit that item. Now you in turn can go back and sue the original seller that defrauded you by mis-representing their product. But you have to prove that they misrepresented it and that's assuming you can find them and actually sue them in the first place.

_________________
DJ Tony
Let It Rip Karaoke

So if I purchased several CB Tracks off of Karaoke-singles.com (overseas website) and have proof I paid for them, then I should have no issues. Right?

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

I don't know and actually that is my real question.

I did my research into ENGLISH law to the extent that it appeared reasonable for a karaoke seller to pay royalties etc in ENGLAND in ways that make the business able to opperate in ways a US company can not. It is also legal to buy from the UK. So based on that research I assumed that Karaoke singles appeared legit, as the price per song (1 brit pound or about $1.65 per song) would be a reasonable price for songs to allow all of the legitimate profit margins. I even talked to one of their (karaoke singles) representives on the phone to verify their presence.

I then spent a non-trivial amount of cash buying songs from karaoke singles.

Now I do not know the true situation of Karaoke-singles but the fact that they stopped selling several brands is not a good sign.

Now of course it is probably going to be a futile exercise for me to attempt to get a refund from a company in the UK, and even if success is possible it would cost many times my loss.

So I am confronted with the situation that I may have individual songs that fit the pattern that was the red flag for the Arizona lawsuit (or pre-lawsuit).

So the question is would the Arizona lawsuit treat me in exactly the same way that the other violators are treated? I can show a paper trail that shows a reasonable effort to purchase all my songs legally.

I think the biggest irony of the whole case is that the exact songs that are probably being used as the "Red Flag" in the Arizona case as likely pirated songs because of their very restricted physical sales are the same ones that Sound Choice had to discontinue for their own legal reasons (IE like the Eagles disk).

Thank you koyote!! Of course they would!!

OMG...this piracy thing is driving me crazy!! Are they going to now say that if I go to Wal-mart and buy a disk that it is my responsibility to investigate whether the manufacturer is legal or not?? If the laws are that ridiculous, then everyone on the forum should go ahead and look for different jobs unless you have a lot of time on your hands. I don't!! I just buy the disks and play them. Please!!

Good thought...sounds about right.

And that's what everyone should be doing. Again, it's not our job to figure out if the manufacturers have obtained the correct licenses to reproduce the discs, just the same as it's not our jobs to figure out if the manufacturers of ANY music CD, movie DVD, etc, have the correct licenses. We just buy them and play them, as it should be.
Karaoke seems to be the ONLY genre where the end users are concerned about it. Shouldn't be that way. I know I don't worry. I buy the discs in good faith. I have a REASONABLE assumption that the discs is not pirated and I play them worry-free. So should the rest of you.

yes but buying a disc from Wal-Mart for a reasonable retail price is different than buying a harddrive with 50,000+ songs on it for a ridiculously low price($400-1,000). Anyone with any brains should realize it is not legitimate.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger