Karaoke Forums

I received the following from the president of a publishing company that handles a nationally-known music star regarding licensing of 8 songs for karaoke use by Slep Tone:



Not only was the song above apparently NOT licensed fully for karaoke use, but the publisher claims it is "the sole license" when SC has in fact, distributed 7 additional songs from the same artist with no apparent or locatable licensing at all.



The publisher also claims that the only apparent license ONLY ALLOWS the "audio file of the song" to be distributed (like the Eagles "RBTL disc") which did NOT have lyrics reprinted or synchronization.

So from the information I have been able to gather, it certainly appears as though only 1 song was "partially licensed" and the rest may have been produced with no authorization at all.... something commonly referred to as "piracy" however you might want to sugarcoat that term into something less. Like "oversight" or "mistake" or "misunderstanding."

AND... from a different (and much larger) publishing house, I received the following snippet in an email from their person in charge of licensing (I added the emphasis):



Interesting that they claim their licensing to "companies like Sound Choice" are for "personal and private use only." While for years, companies "like Sound Choice" have been marketing their products directly to KJ's operating businesses.

OH NO! SAYIT ISN'T SO. ;C)

And Tom from Pop Hits has said a similar thing that they have produced and distributed songs they didn't have a licence for (hoping they would get it) and paid a settlement for doing so.



But I does love the anonymous CEO quote, How about having this CEO come on the forum and tell us personally.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Timberlea, you of all people should know that I don't post something I could never back up (unlike you). In this case, I'm sharing with you what publishers have told me regarding licensing and if you don't believe it, then that's your right to do so. But don't insinuate that what I've posted is not a direct quote or somehow not the truth. I posted this to show what the view/parameters of the publishers are now and that no matter what you hear from some karaoke manufacturers, they are not the sole victims of piracy, they have always been part of the problem.

If you want to enlist a publisher to be on these forums, feel free to contact any of them and solicit them to do so.

Maybe I should send another email asking whether or not Digitrax would be licensed and able to use any of those same songs as part of their catalog. I don't believe that the original licensing granted to Tennessee Production Center (Chartbuster Karaoke) is at all simply transferable to Digitrax.

Nice redirect but it is YOU asserting what this anonymous CEO has stated. As for you facts or assertions, I take with a grain of salt as you tend to twist and spin things your way.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

One thing that is virtually guaranteed is that Chip isn't posting the whole truth.

If Chip were genuinely concerned about this issue, instead of just interested in creating negative feelings toward SC, he would contact me or Kurt about these things. By hiding the name of the publisher from us, he guarantees that we can't provide a substantive response. That tells me that he doesn't want a substantive response...and feel free to speculate about why that is.

Not at all Mr. Harrington. The "name of the publisher" is my business. I'm not asking nor am I requiring any sort of "substantive response" from you or Mr. Slep. This is information that I've researched, expended time and energy, contacted publishers and I'm sharing with fellow KJ's, but thank you for your interest.

Whether or not you feel you somehow deserve a substantive response for any reason whatsoever is irrelevant.

However, I noticed that you didn't miss the opportunity to outright insinuate that I'm not conveying the "whole truth" as you call it. And that's fine. Everyone here understands that your postings are biased toward your client(s) and their interests and that mine are exactly the opposite. I can with 100% certainty expect that your postings are not exactly "the whole truth" in the same manner so on that basis, we're about even.

It's up to the reader's to decide for themselves. I'm also not the one throwing a temper tantrum here. I'm presenting the facts that matter and if it was only one publisher that felt this way, I'd chalk it up to sour grapes however, that isn't turning out to be the case.

Yep, that's EXACTLY what I'm "asserting." And that is that it is a direct quote from the publisher(s). It's up to you how you process this information.

But when it comes to my "facts or assertions," please don't use a grain of salt... use a BOXCAR of salt. It's much easier to bury your head in it.....

So it seems like Sound Choice thinks that it is okay for them to circumvent the law and make money by using music that they have not properly purchased or licensed but they turn around a file law suits against people who allegedly, do the very same thing. Hmmmm Hello kettle. This is Pot. You're Black!

Exactly what facts. It would be like me saying I have the private phone number to a world leader and he or she consults with me before he makes a decision.

One can make any statement they want but it doesn't mean it is a fact. So to use your words "back it up". You brought it up, it is yours to prove.

If your response is going to be you won't or don't or research it yourself, then I will quote Penn & Teller "BULLS#!T".

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Wow you don't give up do you!!!! I'm sure that Chip has the emails to back up what he has posted or it could be construed as Libelous as it was directed right at SC. I'm sure that he is not looking for a law suit.

OH yea if you have those private phone numbers of that world leader please call them an tell them to....Oh never mind I know you don't have them, unlike Chip who DOES have the information he posted!

_________________
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

Well without the publisher name or the song in question being available, it's all speculation still. Just post the info!

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

Pretty interesting... I don't see any of you questioning Harrington when he makes a claim that they actually do an investigation....

Let me use a "Harrington answer" for you:

"I am currently not a liberty to divulge that information."

Now if you wish to call that evasive for some reason, then feel free to do so. The publishers I e-mail are my business, I just thought you might be interested in the explanations I've received from them.

I can only put the information out there. Whether you believe it or not or anything else, is entirely up to you.

Okay doke. So nothing to go on!

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

Exactly like a sound choice investigation isn't it?

Harrington tells you that they're happening, but produces no proof. For some reason, you don't have a problem believing that... like it's the "whole truth."

Maybe because Harrington has creditentials behind him and has to follow the rules and regulations of his bar society and the laws of the State and Country, one of which is client-lawyer privilige. Not only that, he would be stupid to reveal who and where investigations are conducted. I doubt your police chief would reveal ongoing investigations to you or the public.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Okay doke!

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

I can understand the publishers not wanting their name out there on this. Lets face it, we've all learned that the licensing isn't as straight forward as we thought and it might not be a can of worms they wish to be involved in as this time.
Maybe Chip could provide the publisher and songs in question to SC for them to do their own due diligence on. At that point, he would be "upfront" with the info without making it public. I would think the name and the songs in question would be enough. At that point, SC would probably already know the rest of the story.

I found this to be particularly interesting.
It got me considering the difference between a DJ playing music from CDs and a KJ playing music from karaoke CDs. Both my music CDs and karaoke CDs have the standard unauthorized duplication warning on their labels, but only my karaoke CDs are printed with a personal use only warning.

It sounds like that music publisher is saying that all karaoke in a public setting would be an unauthorized violation even when played directly from an original CD.

My understanding is that ASCAP,BMI,and SESAC cover the public performance of the music, but it appears as though the music publishers don't see it that way with karaoke.
Could it be that the music is covered, but the lyric display is unauthorized?

Or is every single one of us in the karaoke industry some form of pirate?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Just as the sources of my "ongoing investigations" aren't revealed to you. But you never seem to have a problem attempting to discredit anything I put up... It's just "what you do."

Oh, and Bernie Madoff had "credentials" too.

Now Timberlea,

I'd like to know if you even care if Digitrax has licensed anything, for any use, anywhere? After all, Digitrax was borne from a very questionable background. And if they sell you downloads, they may want at a later date, to charge you an audit fee for their trademark..