Spalfry, to answer your second post, what you do in your own home is legal - in any nation I am aware of, but I am not a lawyer. As the saying goes, a man's home is his Castle. God help us when the State invades our private abode for its purpose! I am a Republican, in case you didn't know yet. Then it is time to move to Mars or Alpha-Centauri!
My statements should not be construed to grant any legal authority to a position, one way or the other (non-disclaimer). Spalfry, please understand that I am not pointing a finger at you. Many honest folk look at the free aspect of MP3 and MP3+G and think it is OK. I, for one, do not. If I am wrong, time and the law will tell. I state my position from a moral and ethical standpoint. I am simply using this thread to clearly state my postion on MP3+G.
As to
performing music outside your home (with our without vocals removed, it is my understanding that if you buy an Audio CD, and you go to a show where the "performance royalties" are paid (ASCAP in the USA), then it is legal to play your song there in public. You have paid the piper.
If you play an MP3 downloaded song in public that you did not buy, it is my understanding that this is an illegal act. e
As to
displaying lyrics outside your home I have heard some arguments that it can be construed as "publicly publishing" them. So, if you only display the lyrics to the singer, to my understanding that is not "public publishing," i.e. implies legal. In a legal venue where a show is performed, if the songs have been purchased and the performance royalties are paid, I see no basis why it would be illegal. If it is performed at a "private" party (Church, Social Club, invited guests only, etc.) I have found no laws pertaining to this at all.
The only voices I have heard who have objected to this are those who "think" they can move in and demand more royalty into their coffers for what others have done. The artists rarely get a dime of these royalties. That... IMHO... is not right either. [b]Those who do the work, deserve to reap the fruits of their labors.
Bose... Love ya brother 
Let me be more specific on my MP3+G postion. When someone creates a CDG song with the music and the lyrics in sync to the music, and someone else writes a program that is designed to strip the RW (lyrics/graphics) blocks from the CDG file in order to attach them to an MP3 compressed audio file, with currently available tools, the song can be changed so the original owner/producer is no longer identifiable.
Why would someone do that? Expressly to rip off the work to place it in "public access" so anyone can download and use it. That is just as illegal as downloading an MP3 file. Yep.. illegal! Do not construe "public access" with legal "public domain" where the person making it available has the legal right to choose to make it public. The persons who are publishing MP3+G files, at least that I have seen, are not the legal owners, but are making the choice to make it public. Thus, it is an illegal act. This is what I am objecting to.
I read again yesterday on the Forum you emailed me where KHProducer is being discussed for swapping. These are clearly illegal operations, even identified by you as such. MP3+G was an active topic of discussion there.
Commercial Karaoke Producers do not make enough money to sustain massive theft of their work. If MP3+G proliferates, they will find some other industry to make their living in. That's a fact of economic life. Then, you will only have bootleg songs to play. But then the're free so what the heck!
The Producers that turn out good sound use recording studio equipment, musicians, artists, vocalists and mix engineers to create their music. That costs about $2,000 a song when it is all done. How would you like to spend $2,000 doing something you are proud of (and expecting to make a return on your investment), then I come along and rip it off and post it for free Internet download to everyone in the world? Oh yeh, forgot to mention... I won't even give you credit for your work! Course not! I'm bootlegging it and everyone in the world knows that's what I'm doing! That's what MP3+G is.
For those who are old enough to have been taught Right from Wrong (rapidly becoming a dying generation), MP3+G is wrong!
I just read that Paul McCartney is now in the "British Billionaires" circle.
Hip Hip Hooray!!! The artist won! Doesn't that just
feel right when you hear it?
As I get older and look back at what I have done to make an honest living to get here, I appreciate why laws exist. My position has changed. What about you? Who knows, maybe you will run for Parliment one day and help rule Britain for the next generations. Are you now preparing to rule your nation? That is what the younger generation is supposed to do as we older blokes pass on. Do you see where I'm coming from yet?
The first clues I receive identifying a professional is they EXPECT to pay for their karaoke songs. Tell me one legal distributor who is making MP3+G songs available and I'll eat my words. I never expect to see legal distribution of this format. It is not designed to be used by the legal community, but rather by the bootleg community.
What about Hoster? Yes, we are compressing CDG discs to the hard drive. What format? A custom one that does not allow ripping the lyrics/graphics RW file from the total song. Surprised? You shouldn't be.
What about securing songs? Can anyone play them? It will take an MTU program to play our "WMF" CDG compressed format file. That won't be hard to buy, and when we make a player only version, far less expensive than Hoster. With our file format, when a manufacturer encorporates their copyrighted graphic logo into the song, their song is clearly identifiable and public distribution would be illegal. That is the best MTU can offer at this time. If the producers want to join with us and evolve a secured format, Hoster could encrypt the song so it would only play on the Hoster it was encoded on, or purchased and downloaded to run on.
What about selling Hoster compressed songs over the Internet instead of on a CDG disc? That is a dream we are moving toward. It will take a lot of work, but our core file structure could allow this. Our design focus was "legally selling and paying royalties" where MP3+G focus is "free bootleg distribution". We talk to many folks who are both producers or wanna-bes. Everyone wants to make money doing it, and most of them want to do a better job than "those that are out there". Laudable concepts! I encourage every one of them, and yet try to walk a thin line between supporting legal production and distribution, and clients who want everything for free.
Don't you think MTU could sell more product if we encouraged free (read illegal) distributon of songs?
Man, wake up! I'm swimming up stream against a 30 knot current at flood level! I do not believe I am self serving on this matter (contrary to what Sound Choice believes
).
However, if I won't take a stand for what is right, I can't expect the next person to either.
So... what flock do you choose to fly through life with?
Thus sayeth Admin... thus stateth my soap-box position again.
QED
PS: If I have offended anyone, I am sorry. This has been stated from the start to be my position. We will sell our products to whoever buy them for legal purposes. Our Microstudio product license agreement (as will Hoster) forbids use for illegal copying. Our goal is to participate in a legal, enjoyable industry where we can make a living.