Quote:
Originally Posted by mindonstrike
No... Your earlier post indicated your friend was playing an instrument and/or using tracks he created with his instruments.
I'm sure this is an overly simplified answer for a complicated subject (lawyers make up a good chunk of the music industry) but essentially, along with the writer of the music, the performers of the music are entitled to royalties (In this case typicly it would be the karaoke manufactuer), so if you use a track copied from someone else disk, both the music writer and the performers-karaoke companies are not getting their share of the royalties that they would if you purchased your own.
Again probably overly simplified but I think fairly accurate.
Sam
|
I do believe this is an overly simplified theory. Not trying to argue here.
Just would really like to know the correct answer.
Again, We are basically doing the same thing. This musician is using self generated tracks on a computer just as i do, except i have bought the tracks i use. He is not the original song writer nor composer. No one is getting royalties from his use. The clubs i play at pay their fees to the music industry, just as they do when he plays, and i use tracks of my own, do not display written lyrics for the public to see. If your answer is correct (i'm not saying it isn't) then no one gets royalties from entertainers using self generated tracks, using a computer to play the files on the Hoster Program, or any other software of this type.
Seems to me this entertainer and i do the same thing, except the music industry gets royalties from my use and none from his use.
I just can't seem to get it through this thick head where the difference is in the legal reasoning, if there is such a thing.
muzicman144