Karaoke Forums

I don't see how that case will be defining anything except the terms of the contract that the Temptations had with Universal.

In fact, if anything this case proves what Tricerasoft and others have been saying about licensing and selling downloads. It is legal.

It is the manufacturer of the music that is responsible for paying the artists/producers what is due through the terms of their license agreement with the artists/producers (Universal or Sunfly) and those manufacturers then license the distributor to sell for them (Apple Itunes or Tricerasoft). The end user (the guy who bought "My Girl" or the guy who bought "Desperado") is not bothered by legal actions.

This case has nothing to do with the legality of downloads, if anything it clearly states that downloads are legal and that Universal might be trying to screw some people out of their share of legal download revenue.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Take a closer look, read it twice. Itunes is not being sued. I'm sure The Temptations are very pleased with Itunes they could be making a lot of money because of Itunes sales.

As for crawling back into the woodwork, it's the trailblazing efforts that bands like The Temptations put forth that shaped the music you are hoping to peddle in your karaoke show. Most of what you have to offer in your SGB collection can be traced back to influence by The Temptations.

For someone who wants to be in the entertainment business you seem to have a glaring disrespect for those who made your opportunity possible.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I'm not saying they shouldn't get paid. i am saying that without iTunes they would get no exposure. Their concerts would be empty, since radio had abandoned them. Down here, when AC/DC put out their last CD, Black Ice, NOBODY played it. Why? It didn't fit in any of the programming formats. It wasn't classic rock, it wasn't metal, certainly not pop. I, myself, found out about it from Wikipedia. Since radio doesn't bother with new music from old bands, I check Wiki out for the information. That's how I found out the Queensryche had put out a new one(which kinda sucked) and how I found out that Rush is working on a new one. Something needs to change, so bands can make some money again. iTunes, to me, is one of the best things to happen to music. It's just too bad the program, itself, is crap.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Already done, and NOT the same thing. I have in my possession, and use in shows, the product of a factory run by the mfr. That product's licensing is, by default of being their product, their responsibility.

To repeat ad nauseum, a download, only existing after the creation of a consumer file, is- at best- a copy of the original mfrs. product that is still in the mfrs. possession.

Not even close to the same thing...

At this point I find it so hard to believe that ANYONE thinks a download is OEM that amazes me when such a statement comes up. The factory retains the original, therefore a download CAN'T be the original. RIGHT? Keep in mind-again- that discs may be copies of a master, but they are produced at the factory of the manufacturer, under their QC, as are their masters. It's their product. The file created by the consumer with absolutely no QC oversight by the mfr. is the creation of the consumer- not the mfr.

Disagree? Please break down the paragraph above and explain where the the error may be.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

In order to break this down, I will first need to define O.E.M. and it turns out that there is no "official" definition. However, since we are talking about downloads, I will reference the PC Magazine definition.
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/ ... 291,00.asp


I think that definition fits intangibles like downloads that are sold under the authorization of the manufacturer.

Now the break down:

Considering that the karaoke song was manufactured using a computer, the CD is the copy that was stamped from an original that remains in the manufacturers' possession.
But wait...

Why would you assume there is no QC oversight? Manufacturers have standards. Visit Sunfly's "formats explained" page: http://www.sunflykaraoke.cmo.sunflykara ... ined/32781
They explain right there the standards you can expect and those you can request. They sell their own music through download, are those not OEM? When Sunfly supplies a distributor files to sell through download can those no longer be given recognition as Sunfly files? Of course they can, it has been authorized by the manufacturer and is recognized by the manufacturer as so. In other words,

Creation of the consumer? When I purchase a download I pay for the product and the seller then builds it on my hard drive one bit at a time at my request. I didn't create anything. If the seller stops building it at any point in the process, I end up with nothing usable. That sounds like a level of QC to me.


Joe, I think the error may be in your luddite mentality. There is nothing wrong with avoiding technology if you don't like it, but denying the truth of its' existence or relevence rather than adapting to it is the first step to being over-run by it.

Just because a downloaded karaoke song is slightly more intangible than the same song on a disc, that doesn't automatically make it inferior and unworthy. That's why most manufacturers sell them side by side with their disc products.

We live in a digital age where entire companies outside of the karaoke industry survive solely on selling the product they create through download (books, maps, schematics, service manuals) and each download is considered an original purchase.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I am hyper-aware of the fact that we make a living off of someone else's creativity.

I have the utmost respect for the artist and everyone who supports the process that produces the songs that our shows rely on.

Truth is, I have no problem with artists that aren't comfortable or completely against karaoke.

They are a fraction of a percentage of the artists that license their music so we can make an honest buck.

I don't believe anyone should have to kiss anyone's 4$$ to do something that the creator does not wish to allow.

The plain truth of the matter (as someone referenced Steve King) is that it is no longer necessary as an artist to play within the confines of the system.

Tricerasoft has demonstrated to my satisfaction that they are working within the guidelines to assure that everyone from the original artist or their agent(s) to the end user is covered to a "reasonable expectation" with regards to commercial use of their product.

If someone or some entity that holds any rights reserved to the product that I use for my show has a problem, all they have to do is communicate with me. That's it.

I am of the opinion that Tricerasoft has disclosed all of the information that is pertinent to my decision to use their product during the course of producing live karaoke entertainment.

Until someone who holds a greater interest or "rights reserved" contacts me to tell me otherwise, what liability am I exposed to? I contend that it is little to none.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

Exactly, as long as the fees are paid, and permissions given for each title. While this can certainly be done, it takes a LOT of effort- for each and every title offered.

Two things:

1) The documentation from the artist groups is correct, it doesn't say that each and every provider has paid those fees and permissions. It is the provider that must accept liability.

So far, I have yet to see one offer documentation with each track, so there is no proof that they have done so. It's nice to assume, as we did for years with the discs that we bought and paid for. However, we know better now. Mfrs. and providers imply things that aren't true.

Verbal from either end of the horse is worthless. If a used car salesman tells you that the car is trying to sell is the best, and tht you won't find a better price, do you actually take his word for it?


2) There is a huge miconception about my posts here. I am not telling ANYONE what to do, or whether to download. All I am saying is that, at this point, it does add possible future liability to your business, and this should be considered if you purchase downloads.

Look, years ago pirates (music thieves) figured why not? No one was bothering anyone, so they figured it was safe to do. In case no one noticed, changes have occurred.

Is it not reasonable to assume that there is a possibilty that other changes may occur as well?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

...Old news, new news, whatever it may be for you. I copied this from the RIAA Site under the Online Piracy tab labeled THE LAW. It's yours to dissect....If you so desire to read.


Unauthorized Copying is Against the Law

Copyright law protects the value of creative work. When you make unauthorized copies of someone’s creative work, you are taking something of value from the owner without his or her permission. Most likely, you’ve seen the FBI warning about unauthorized copying at the beginning of a movie DVD. Though you may not find these messages on all compact discs or music you’ve downloaded from the Internet, the same laws apply. Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, rental or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings. (Title 17, United States Code, Sections 501 and 506).

What the Law Says and What it Means

Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings is against the law and may subject you to civil and criminal liability. A civil law suit could hold you responsible for thousands of dollars in damages. Criminal charges may leave you with a felony record, accompanied by up to five years of jail time and fines up to $250,000. You may find this surprising. After all, compact discs may be easily be copied multiple times with inexpensive CD-R burning technology. Further, when you’re on the Internet, digital information can seem to be as free as air. U.S. copyright law does in fact provide full protection of sound recordings, whether they exist in the form of physical CD’s or digital files. Regardless of the format at issue, the same basic principal applies: music sound recordings may not be copied or distributed without the permission of the owner.

What the Courts Have to Say

A long series of court rulings has made it very clear that it’s against the law both to upload and download copyrighted music without permission. It doesn’t matter whether you’re dealing with sound recordings, pictures, software or written text. The courts have consistently ruled that many peer-to-peer (P2P) programs and other unauthorized uploading and downloading inherently amount to copyright infringement and therefore constitute a crime.

Common Examples of Online Copyright Infringement:

You make an MP3 copy of a song because the CD you bought expressly permits you to do so. But then you put your MP3 copy on the Internet, using a file-sharing network, so that millions of other people can download it.
Even if you don’t illegally offer recordings to others, you join a file-sharing network and download unauthorized copies of all the copyrighted music you want for free from the computers of other network members.
In order to gain access to copyrighted music on the computers of other network members, you pay a fee to join a file-sharing network that isn’t authorized to distribute or make copies of copyrighted music. Then you download unauthorized copies of all the music you want.
You transfer copyrighted music using an instant messenging service.
You have a computer with a CD burner, which you use to burn copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs for all of your friends.
Somebody you don’t even know e-mails you a copy of a copyrighted song and then you turn around and e-mail copies to all of your friends.
Do The Crime, Do The Time
If you do not have legal permission, and you go ahead and copy or distribute copyrighted music anyway, you can be prosecuted in criminal court and/or sued for damages in civil court.

Criminal penalties for first-time offenders can be as high as five years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
Civil penalties can run into many thousands of dollars in damages and legal fees. The minimum penalty is $750 per song.
The "No Electronic Theft Law" (NET Act) is similar on copyright violations that involve digital recordings:

Criminal penalties can run up to five years in prison and/or $250,000 in fines, even if you didn’t do it for monetary or financial or commercial gain.
If you did expect something in return, even if it just involves swapping your files for someone else’s, as in MP3 trading, you can be sentenced to as much as five years in prison.
Regardless of whether you expected to profit, you’re still liable in civil court for damages and lost profits of the copyright holder.
Or the copyright holders can sue you for up to $150,000 in statutory damages for each of their copyrighted works that you illegally copy or distribute.
If you make digital copies of copyrighted music on your computer available to anyone through the Internet without the permission of the copyright holder, you’re stealing. And if you allow a P2P file-sharing network to use part of your computer’s hard drive to store copyrighted recordings that anyone can access and download, you’re on the wrong side of the law.

Having the hardware to make unauthorized music recordings doesn’t give you the right to steal. Music has value for the artist and for everyone who works in the industry.

What the Courts Have to Say About Illegal Uploading and Downloading…
…and Copyrighted Sound Recordings:

"As stated by Record Company Plaintiffs in their brief, "Aimster predicates its entire service upon furnishing a 'road map' for users to find, copy, and distribute copyrighted music." …We agree. Defendants [Aimster] manage to do everything but actually steal the music off the store shelf and hand it to Aimster's users."
Aimster Copyright Litigation. 01-C-8933, MDL # 1425 (Memorandum Opinion and Order, September 4, 2002).

"…they [Aimster] apparently believe that the ongoing, massive, and unauthorized distribution and copying of Record Company Plaintiffs' copyrighted works by Aimster's end users somehow constitutes "personal use.’ This contention is specious and unsupported by the very case on which Defendants rely."
Aimster Copyright Litigation. 01-C-8933, MDL # 1425 (Memorandum Opinion and Order, September 4, 2002).

"Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders’ exclusive rights . . . .Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs’ distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights….[V]irtually all Napster users engage in the unauthorized downloading or uploading of copyrighted music . . ."
A & M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).

"Although defendant [MP3.com] seeks to portray its service as the ‘functional equivalent’ of storing its subscribers’ CDs, in actuality defendant is re-playing for the subscribers converted versions of the recording it copied, without authorization, from plaintiffs’ copyrighted CDs. On its face, this makes out a presumptive case of infringement under the Copyright Act . . . ."
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

…and Copyrighted Images:
"Distributing unlawful copies of a copyrighted work violates the copyright owner’s distribution right and, as a result, constitutes copyright infringement. . . . . [Unlawful distribution occurs where] [f]iles of [copyrighted] information are stored in the central system, and subscribers may either ‘download’ information into their[computers] or ‘upload’ information from their home units into the central files . . . ."
Playboy Enterprises v. Russ Hardenburgh, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 503 (N.D. Ohio 1997).

"[The Copyright Act] provides that an owner of a copyrighted work has the exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies . . . [and] to distribute copies of the work to the public . . . . [A]nyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner … is an infringer of the copyright."
Playboy Enterprises v. Webbworld Inc., 991 F. Supp. 543 (N.D. Tex. 1997).

…and Copyrighted Software:
"Uploading is copying. Downloading is also copying. Unauthorized copying is an unauthorized use that is governed by the copyright laws. Therefore, unauthorized uploading and unauthorized downloading are unauthorized uses governed by the copyright laws . . . ."
Ohio v. Perry, 83 Ohio St. 3d 41, 697 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 1998).

"The unauthorized copying of copyrighted computer programs is . . . an infringement of the copyright . . . . [U]nauthorized copies . . . are made when such games are uploaded to the BBS [Bulletin Board Service] . . . [and] when they are downloaded to make additional copies by users . . . ."
Sega Enterprises v. MAPHIA, 857 F. Supp. 679 (N.D. Cal. 1994).

"‘[C]opying,’ for the purposes of copyright law, occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a computer's random access memory. In this case, copies were made when the Sega game files were uploaded to or downloaded from [the defendant’s] BBS [Bulletin Board Service]."
Sega Enterprises. v. Sabella, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20470 (N.D. Cal. 1996).

…and Copyrighted Text:
"Defendant Free Republic is a ‘bulletin board’ website whose members use the site to post news articles to which they add remarks or commentary . . . . The Plaintiffs' [Los Angeles Times and Washington Post] complaint alleges that unauthorized copying and posting of the articles on the Free Republic site constitutes copyright infringement . . . . [P]laintiffs' motion for summary adjudication with respect to fair use is granted . . . ."
L.A. Times v. Free Republic, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669 (C.D. Cal. 2000).

"When a person browses a website, and by so doing displays the [copyrighted] Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright. Additionally, a person making a printout or re-posting a copy of the Handbook on another website would infringe plaintiff's copyright."
Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999).

When It Comes to Copying Music, What’s Okay … And What’s Not:

Technology has made digital copying easier than ever. But just because advances in technology make it possible to copy music doesn’t mean it’s legal to do so. Here are tips on how to enjoy the music while respecting rights of others in the digital world. Stick with these, and you’ll be doing right by the people who created the music.

Internet Copying

It’s okay to download music from sites authorized by the owners of the copyrighted music, whether or not such sites charge a fee.
Visit our list of Legal Music Sites or Music United for a list of a number legal and safe sites where permission is granted and content is available for downloading.
It’s never okay to download unauthorized music from pirate sites (web or FTP) or peer-to-peer systems. Examples of peer-to-peer systems making unauthorized music available for download include: Ares, BitTorrent, Gnutella, Limewire, and Morpheus.
It’s never okay to make unauthorized copies of music available to others (that is, uploading music) on peer-to-peer systems.
Copying CDs

It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.
Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.
Are there occasionally exceptions to these rules? Sure. A "garage" or unsigned band might want you to download its own music; but, bands that own their own music are free to make it available legally by licensing it. And, remember that there are lots of authorized sites where music can be downloaded for free. Better to be safe than sorry – don’t assume that downloading or burning is legal just because technology makes it possible.

Enjoy the music. By doing the right thing, you’ll be doing your part to make sure that the music keeps coming.

* This site is intended to educate consumers about the issues associated with the downloading, uploading and consumer copying of music. It is not intended to offer legal advice or be a comprehensive guide to copyright law and the commercial uses of music.

And have you checked each and every track in your disc-based library for the same documentation Joe? Regarding what you keep posting here, the same could be said for disc-based shows. After all, you keep bringing up the legality of SC 8125. I'm sure you have lots of tracks on the other discs you own and use at your shows (not SC discs), that weren't produced legally.

I'm not even sure if everybody's been paid for the last CD I bought at best buy or the last album I downloaded from amazon.com - is anybody else? I've got to assume that very visible companies doing business in the open marketplace are legit or else I'd drive myself crazy.

I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend, unless you're just yanking my chain.

I DON'T CARE OR NEED TO CARE ABOUT DOCUMENTATION. Why? BECAUSE A SHOW BASED ON ORIGINAL MFRS. DISCS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR LICENSING- IT REMAINS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MFR. . Not my problem. Get it? If, on the other hand, people are creating their own files or discs, then they ARE responsible for the use of their COPIES and RE-CREATIONS of mfrs. original products.

This is the third time I have posted this in this thread alone. If there is a comprehension problem, I suggest that one might speak to a business professional.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I think all of this arguing is irrelevant. If Tricerasoft says they have the rights to allow KJs to use these works, then take them on their word. All the legal documentation in online for all to see, and is public domain. If anyone were to come after the KJ for using Tricerasoft's songs, said KJ has plenty of backing and the case would have to be dismissed. Then a case could be brought against Tricerasoft for misleading the public, AND copy write infringement.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Joe, I don’t think you are allowing for the distinction between a purchased download and a pirated download. That seems to be the problem with many who oppose downloading content. They compare it too closely to pirated downloads and yet there is no comparison. I haven’t considered the liabilities of using pirated downloads in a show in my discussion here, because it is pointless; the activity of pirating content is not legal. You know, just because outlaws use weapons for committing their crimes it does not mean weapons have no good purpose. It is the same with downloads.

I can make all of the same claims about my purchased downloads that you can about your discs.
When I purchase a download either directly from the manufacturer or from the manufacturer’s representative, I receive documentation with that purchase that amounts to ownership authorization from that manufacturer that is equal to that of a disc purchase. As far as the manufacturer’s licensing agreement with the producers and artists, I DON'T CARE OR NEED TO CARE ABOUT DOCUMENTATION. Why? BECAUSE A SHOW BASED ON ORIGINAL MFRS. DOWNLOADS IS NOT LIABLE FOR LICENSING- IT REMAINS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MFR. .

Even in the case of a manufacturer who did not have proper licensing on a disc or download I use in a show, I have no need to worry because it was not my responsibility to obtain the licensing to create that product. Perhaps one would want to make a case that I created a new product during the mysterious “media shift” when I put the content of my disc on my hard drive, but even then I’m not worried about it because I’m not distributing it and distribution is where the great liability would lie. In fact my purchased download offers me superior protection over a CD because there is no mysterious “media shift” when I put it on my computer.

The primary liability I subject myself to when using my discs or download media is the public performance. My liability is minimized when I play in a venue that is covered by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. This is how the people behind the music I use get what is owed to them from my usage. The people behind the creation of the actual disc or download I use got what was owed to them when I paid for that purchase and within that purchase price was the money owed to the artists and producers. If the manufacturers try to screw the artists and producers out of their share of that money, it's not my problem because I paid in good faith through their own established chain of payment.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I've brought this up before... in my opinion, it's possesion of stolen property, but as I say, people like to draw the line where they feel comfortable......am I guilty.... sure am.....do I care what others do..... sure don't.....we all fall short of that great karaoke god in the sky.....as you say Cue.....lots of tracks were made without the artist's permission.....most people probably have more without permission, than ones with permission....

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Considering that the karaoke song was manufactured using a computer, the CD is the copy that was stamped from an original that remains in the manufacturers' possession.
But wait...
[b]2-
Why would you assume there is no QC oversight? Manufacturers have standards. Visit Sunfly's "formats explained" page: .......
.[/quote]


1 AND 2- -

Same answer, which, for reasons unknown ( maybe convenience if one is a download based host) is skipped or ignored.

I deleted all of the QC information from Sunfly and the rest because that QC occurs AT THE FACTORY, and no one said anything about no QC there. No one from the mfrs. QC department is watching over your shoulder or testing the file that you created.

Assuming that you are the greatest downloader of all time, and have the greatest equipment of all time, that still wouldn't mean that everyone else is or does.

People download at different rates, from different types of transmission media, on different types of equipment- none of which is the responsibility of the factory's QC department.

The factory most certainly have QC'd the product- but no one oversees the consumer created copy. Also, if you are re-creating product from a provider, your file is a creation of a download from a download- and does the provider have a factory authorized QC pro on hand? Not likely.

BTW- I'm not even bringing up transmission errors for which neither the factory nor the consumer have any quality control.

"Luddite mentality" has nothing to do with it. If you download direct from the factory, you still have a copy created by you. If you download from a provider, you have a copy of a copy created by you.

If you happen to be a fan of MP3s, the only advertised MP3s that can be had as originals are SC's GEMS, and CB's cards or drives. All fully overseen at the factory, and also their product- limiting liability.

You know for a fact that I have no desire to support SC, but if that's what you want, they'll lease it to you.

Other factories are making MP3 discs as well, but they aren't big on talking about it.


I'll tell you what, I'll bet HarringtonLaw would sure consider downloads copies AT THIS TIME, as that position would benefit his stance. Now, he may well give a download host a "bye" if they met whatever conditions he requests, but that won't protect said host from SC's doings.... Of course, that position may well change if SC starts offering direct downloads...


Look, I don't care if someone is download based or not, as long as they paid for their music.

All I have been TRYING to say is that if one is running a business, one should be aware of all possible liabilities.

If you disagree, that's terrific- I wish you nothing but success.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I don't disagree.

I believe that there is no legal liabilty in using downloads that is any greater than that of using discs if they are provided by the manufacturer or by the manufacturer's representative.

I also believe that by shunning the use of legal downloads a business owner would be voluntarily opening the door to another liabilty. That business owner would be placing an additional burden on himself of not having the same legal options to compete as everyone else.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Along those same lines, buying and using those downloads could get the other companies to get with the program and get the licensing they need to allow downloading for public use of THEIR products. Kind of like "either modernize, or get out".

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

OK so what are CB's updates to their drives?
Are they copies the drive owner made or are they factory originals?

If you say they are factory originals how can they be because the drive owner downloads them from CB and according to your statements they would be your responsibility not CB's.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Thinking of this in the way that a manufacturer would, I would focus less on the delivery mechanism and more on the authorization.

Copyright gives the copyright owner the right to control distribution of the copyrighted work. The copyright owner can decide to permit or prevent distribution of the work through any particular mechanism.

The manufacturer is (in most cases) both a copyright owner and a licensee of the copyright owner of the musical work. If the manu's license allows for distribution by downloads, the manu can authorize distribution by download. If the manu's license does not allow for distribution by download, the manu cannot authorize distribution by download. But because the manu retains its own copyright, it can prohibit distribution by downloads if it wishes. (And the ability to restrict is not limited to distribution; there are a lot of other conditions that can be placed on tracks by the various copyright owners.)

If the download is authorized--and by that, I mean fully authorized by all of the upstream rights holders--then I would deem the resulting file an "original," such that it could be used in the same way that a disc could be used.

If the download lacks full authorization from each upstream provider, then I would conclude that it is an unauthorized copy.

The difference between the two is potentially very much a critical one. Suppose you downloaded a track from a manu who did not get permission from the upstream rights holders to distribute via download. Your activity would be a copyright infringement, and you could be sued by any party whose rights you violated. While you might have recourse against the manu, copyright infringement is a strict liability offense, meaning that you do not even have to know you are committing it to be found liable for it. (The Copyright Act does provide for reduced damages for innocent infringement, but it is not a complete defense.) If it is impractical for you to sue the manu (because, for example, they are outside the U.S.), then you're out of luck.

There is a structural difference in the law between CDs and downloads. The purchaser of an unauthorized CD is not a participant in the act of distribution, so the purchaser has not (yet) committed a copyright infringement merely by taking delivery of the CD. The purchaser of a download, by contrast, is necessarily a participant in the act of distribution--because the purchaser directs his computer as to where to store the download--as well as being complicit in the creation of an unauthorized copy by directing his computer to make the copy. So the method of obtaining tracks does matter.

The thing that tempers all of this, of course, is that it is very impractical for rights holders to sue small-time users. As the RIAA proved through the 2000s, it is not impossible, and if the practice becomes widespread, enforcement actions become more likely. However, as long as the performance rights fees are paid, the rights holders are being paid, and they are unlikely to push beyond that.