Karaoke Forums

I saw a report on TV this morning saying that the music industry was losing substantial amounts (billions) of money to the DVD rental industry (Redbox in specific). They were saying that lowcost video rentals is changing the music industry. I'm sure we all agree that it ranks right up their with free downloads.

I got to wondering what the DVD rental industry would look like if Redbox or Blockbuster (or others) were required to pay a royalty for each rental they made or an annual fee like bars and tavern have to for jukeboxes and live entertainment.

That got me to thinking about the karaoke industry's similarities (and differences). BMI runs around the country checking establishments to make sure that license fees are paid up to date. By complying, they post a sign on the door (or on the jukebox) saying that the business is in compliance. This keeps it honest for the most part.

I know that they check DJ's also as a friend of mine had to pony up about two grand for Napster downloads. (He learned his lesson the hard way).

Sound Choice is more interested in selling their wares to pirates than they are in the legal aspects. It doesn't really have the same impact unless you happen to be in an area where they are known to be looking. KIAA advertises that they have undercover agents checking, but I don't think they are big enough yet to make an impact. Also, advertising that you are fining members $1000 FOR non-compliance will keep anyone who is not sure their discs are 100% legit from even contacting them. From what I've read on these forums, there are a lot of KJ's who don't know what's legal and what's not. They just know that they purchased their discs.

So now back to the point. I would think that the fee the venue pays annually for entertainment would cover themselves (and the KJ) for the actual playing of copyrighted music on the premises. That says nothing about the legality of the library. The venue also pays protection (I like that) so that they can play TV's on their premises, so any question of the lyrics argument should also be covered on their behalf.

Now comes Capt Kidd the Karaoke Pirate. He downloads all his music from a shareware site. He did not pay for discs because he does not have any. He did not pay royalty to the songwriters (but that is covered under the venues license). The problem is that he did not pay the Disc manufacturer (ie SC) to cover their just due for creating the recording. That puts them in the same boat as say Columbia Records who records an artist and sells a CD. The artist gets paid from the profits of the sale. SO do the musicians. (The royalties for play are covered above).

The manufacturer loses profits from sales because Capt. Kidd did not purchase the disc. The manufacturer also gets no royalty from the subscription because ASCAP and BMI don't represent Karaoke Manufacturers. This is where the question begins.

If SC and other Karaoke Manufacturers were to strike up an agreement with BMI, ASCAP, etc., would they not benefit two fold:

1) They would receive a royalty check from venue license fees based on the same type of formula that the music industry has adopted.

2) BMI agents would be checking these venues for compliance and would then be involved in policing the KJ's as well as the DJ's.

I'm sure there are holes in my theories here. That's why it's open for discussion. I don't think the industry can survive the way it's going. And they are not big enough yet to do the job themselves. In the meantime, you and I still have to deal with Capt Kidd.

Oh, in a perfect world...


Meanwhile the artist orgs. like BMI and ASCAP are always getting sued by their own artist because the artists rarely see the full royalties that these groups may be able to collect.

If these ors aren't paying their own artists what's due to them, I doubt the karaoke mfrs. will fair much better....

Also, since many karaoke mfrs. have distributed a HUGE amount of music for which they had no licence or permission to do so, I don't see a warm fuzzy partnership here in the near future...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

As bad as the current system is for royalties to songwriters for karaoke, a change in the system will not make many people happy.

The karaoke industry both the KJs and Karaoke manufacture companies have millions invested in the current system, they are not likely to change the system despite its faults.

On the other hand many who are in violation of the current laws dont care about a change either.

As for making the primary music industry happy, no real interest in change either. The royalties that karaoke gives to songwriters are probably a tiny fraction of the total profit of a successfull artist. Not to say that we shouldnt be paying them but they are not a significant concern of the artists who wrote the songs.

Those that can cheat the system, will cheat the system.

My post on "Ghost Shift" illustrates how some of this happens.

The karaoke mfg that pays for 5,000 karaoke disks and prints 40,000.

The KJ that spends his evening between songs copying disks.

The BMI etc. fines go to the artists, right?

While there is actually nothing to prevent BMI & ASCAP & SESAC from representing Karaoke "publishers", after reading the following you may have a broader understanding of the roles those groups actually play! And please note that there is still the incorrect understanding that those groups represent ARTISTS; THEY DO NOT!

If you like, this is the link to what follows. http://jagmmp.com/music_articles/should_i_join_ascap_bmi_or_sesac.html

Should I Join ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC?
By: Jerry A. Greene

Question: Should I join ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC?

Answer: The answer to this really depends on your personal preferences.

First thing you must realize is that SESAC is usually very hard to get into, unless you are already having great success in the music business...it's almost like you have to be invited to join. For most composers, songwriter, or publishers, this isn't an option..

This leaves, ASCAP vs BMI. Now, this is my personal opinion, not because of my affiliation, but I "believe" ASCAP to be the better choice. My reason for this is that ASCAP was founded and is still run by the composers, authors and publishers which makes up it's membership. BMI, on the other hand, is run by broadcasters, and are generally the same people that don't want to pay for use of music (broadcasters make money through advertising, and the more of it they can keep, the better). This seems, to me anyway, to be a conflict of interest. I would rather have people on my side, helping me to make a living from my music.

As a writer, you can only belong to one of the 3 performing rights organizations. As a publisher, you can belong to all 3, which is important if you want to publish other writers' works. If you are going to self publish, please bear in mind that a publisher can only publish songs owned by a member of that organization.

Both ASCAP and BMI fight for the top spot in the music industry. They both want to be known as being the best and paying their members the most money. Which pays more? Well, from what I heard lately, BMI seems to pay out bigger in the beginning, adding bonuses to member that get their songs into the mainstream quickly, but then the money tapers off. ASCAP seems to pay a more steady rate over the long haul and (usually) a better income over time. This is all subjective though because it relies on so many factors including where the song is on the charts and how the competition is doing. There are never any 2 songs doing exactly the same thing on the charts and also getting the most cover recordings and other performing rights. The best way to tell how each organization pays its members is for a song to be owned by an ASCAP writer and publisher (50%) and a BMI writer and publisher (50%) and then compare the income.

From this statement, I can see why the CDG lyrics screens say "In the style of" - they don't want to take a chance of having to pay the artist a royalty on top of the songwriter. By using their own musicians, manufacturers don't have to pay royalties to performers either.

Looks like the industry is going to be sketchy at best on enforcement until it grows or there is legal precedence set somewhere that specifies what the industry is willing to tolerate. I guess, for now, we play by rules we set for ourselves and "we takes our chances."

I think this is something that needs to repeated once again, and what most people fail to understand about the PROs.

Good stuff tov!

_________________
Dave's not here.