question on licensing agreement

[FayeTipton]

There should be a licensing agreement between each music manufacturer and the company producing the player for all the music loaded on the player. I just read this on a web site about copyright and things of that sort. Does Hoster laptop and the hoster pc have such agreement with the karaoke companies? who?

I sure don't want to do anything wrong.

Faye

[George]

Don't really understand what you're saying.

There is no music loaded into Hoster when it is shipped from MTU.

George

[FayeTipton]

I reference this organization: http://www.karaokeantipiracyagency.com/faq.html

This is the part I am not sure about:

If I buy a hard drive system that has pre-loaded songs, can I legally play these songs?

ADMIN: There are several companies that license the use of their products on computers or machines with a hard drive. It is certainly legal to play any of these licensed products.


If I own my own discs, can I load them onto a hard drive to play them in a show, etc.?

ADMIN: Yes, you MAY load songs from discs you buy onto your hard drive. Copying the discs on to a hard drive is the same as copying the discs, which CDG discs are legally rated as SOFTWARE, and the US Supreme Court has ruled, and the anti-piracy organization you were intimidated by knows this, that the owner of a software disc has the legal right to make a backup copy. You do NOT need written permission of the company that produced the discs to backup the product you own.


What companies license their music for play on a hard drive? Currently I only find Music Maestro, Top Hits Monthly, DKK Millennium, and Chartbuster have licensing agreements with any hard drive player manufacturers.

ADMIN: The licensing you are talking about here is a license to DISTRIBUTE the songs on a hard drive, not on CDG media. However, from your prior question, if you own the discs, you can load them to a hard drive and play them, in private. To legally perform them in public, you must pay the BMI/ASCAP performance royalties. That is the only legal restrictions to play songs from a hard drive. There are dealers who provide songs imported to the hard drive ONLY when they also sell and ship the CDG discs containing those songs along with the system. This simply saves the end user time from importing what they have the legal right to do.


So is it legal to copy to the hoster or not?

ADMIN: We have spent over a quarter-million dollars developing our software. Before making this investment, we carefully searched the Copyright laws and find no indication anywhere that a CDG disc is rated a "Phonorecord" as some try to claim.

We have called the Copyright office several times and asked them (latest was 10/23/03) and they clearly state "Phonorecords are vinyl discs with the audio recorded in groves in the media. CD or CDG discs have never been classsed as Phonorecords."

Quote from the KAPA site (10/23/03): "However, music (including Karaoke CDGs) is part of the "Phonorecord" class of copyrighted materials. Archive copies are not permitted in this class. So, no, you may not make an archive copy of your Karaoke discs."

Now, would you believe the Copyright office employee or a web page in direct opposition, that is maintained by an organization entirely owned, run and managed by Sound Choice? Your call, but as for me, I trust the Copyright Office.

We further asked (10/23/03): Is it legal for us to sell software that allows a digital transfer of the data on the CDROM to computer for use instead of the original? Answer: Using in a lawful manner is OK, unlawful is not OK. Public performance royalties need to be paid if multiple monitors are displaying the graphics to the public.


The USA copyright laws clearly states what the penalties are for copyright infringement. These financial penalties are very clearly stated for violators. There is absolutely nothing in any form of a penalty or statement of violation for a legal owner of a copyrighted work making a backup copy of that work.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that any CD disc is considered "software", and software discs can be backed up by the owner without any written authorization from the copyright holder.

To my knowledge, there was a court case in the north-west USA where KAPA/Sound Choice took a host to court because she was using a backup copy in her show, of one of her purchased master discs. She still had the master. From what I have heard from 2 sources, the Judge in this case harshly confronted Sound Choice, stating that in their own publications they call their products "software", and the Supreme Court has ruled it is legal to make backup copies of software CDs. The case was thrown out of court.

Don't be misled by intimidating statements made by vendors whose sole purpose is to scare you into paying them more money than others charge, to create a false monopoly through intimidation, or to discredit competitors.

Numerious individuals and organizations have asked the anti-piracy organization for the US legal statutes that uphold their intimidation claims. NEVER ONCE have they produced one shread of evidence. It is clearly intimidation and it is time the industry recognize it for what it is!

Read this Thread page 5 for my (Admin) challenge to them over a year ago.



ADMIN

Faye

[gduns - with the Lord]

Hoster is software that facilitates playing your cdg's that you bought, in a karaoke show. If you load a cdg that you have possession of to play, then it should be legal to play it.

I don't see anywhere in the copyrite law that says you have to play it in a cdg player. therefore playing them on a computer is no diffrent than loading them one at a time and playing them manually. The key to all this is you do have to possess the actual original disk.

Let me add that I am not an MTU employee, I am just a very happy customer that helps with technical assistance.

[pcgumshoe]

The United States Court Of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Docket No 95-7887, ABKCO Music Inc. and ABKCO Music and Records, Inc., v. Stellar Records, Inc. And Performance Tracks, Inc. (96 F.3d 60) Deals with the “Phonorecord” Phenomenon on Sebtember 19, 1996.

http://www.kentlaw.edu/e-Ukraine/cop...v_stellar.html

I have taken the liberty of pulling sections from this case for your review:

First some background:

The case surrounds ABKCO’s ownership of seven copyrights of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards’ of the Rolling Stone including, “Satisfaction (I Can’t Get No),” “Jumping Jack Flash,” and “Brown Sugar.” Stellar Records attempted to use these songs by complusory licnese:

"Under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Section(s) 101 et seq., the producers and distributors of karaoke versions of songs must acquire synchronization or "synch" licenses from the copyright owners of the songs to legally manufacture karaoke discs; a copyright owner may negotiate, if so disposed, the karaoke use of a song and the terms of the authorizing synch license with a karaoke maker Tracks did not secure synchronization licenses from ABKCO, but instead, viewing its products as "phonorecords," obtained "compulsory licenses" for the compositions, pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section(s) 115, which permits the manufacture and distribution of new "cover" versions of copyrighted musical works as long as the licensee follows the statutory notice requirements and pays the proper royalty fees. Section 115 of the Copyright Act provides in part:

"Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords

"In the case of nondramatic musical works, the exclusive rights . . . to make and to distribute phonorecords of such works, are subject to compulsory licensing under the conditions specified by this section.

"(a) Availability and Scope of Compulsory License.—

"(1) When phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work have been distributed to the public in the United States under the authority of the copyright owner, any other person may, by complying with the provisions of this section, obtain a compulsory license to make and distribute phonorecords of the work. A person may obtain a compulsory license only if his or her primary purpose in making phonorecords is to distribute them to the public for private use. . . .

"(2) A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner.

"Under the Copyright Act, "phonorecords" are defined as material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "phonorecords" includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed.

"Tracks' contention that CD+G's are "phonorecords" and thus the video aspect is within the grant of its compulsory licenses can be disposed of quickly. The plain language of the Copyright Act refutes Tracks' view. Phonorecords are defined as objects on which "sounds" are fixed; CD+G's, however, are objects on which sounds and visual representations of song lyrics are fixed. Moreover, the term phonorecord expressly excludes "audiovisual works," yet CD+G's constitute "audiovisual works," since they "consist of a series of related images"--the lyrics-- "together with accompanying sounds"--the music. 17 U.S.C. Section(s) 101."

PCGUMSHOE NOTE: It would appear to me that the “INDUSTRY” of manufacturers really need this “phonorecords” title to screw us AND the people holding the copyrights. It is my belief that there are MANY songwriters, producers, and singers out there that see karaoke as a “TACKY” form of entertainment and that the quality of the performances would be so bad that they may actually PREVENT people from buying their music, seeing their shows, or enjoying their art.

In that I am called upon by many of my patrons to manufacture songs that don’t exist in karaoke, I feel akin to the manufacturers who want to call their disks phonorecords, but clearly the definitions of these disks are not the same as what we produce. There needs to be a better clearing house for our industry and there should be no song that CAN’T be made into karaoke because someone doesn’t like OUR art form.

I hope this helps.

[jaddams]

PCGumshoe,

Nice research. Congratulations!

Best regards,

Jon

[pcgumshoe]

Okay, for so long I have been wrestling with this very problem. You see, I started working with MTU products back 2 years ago. I was contracted by a company to look into "ARCHIVING" their Pioneer Laser Collection (Which I Know Own).

I did an exhausting amount of research. I even spoke to representatives at PIONEER about archiving their large format disks. Although they admit that they are no longer producing the "Software," as they referred to it, they are still manufacturing the "Hardware." I have since purchased an 888 player, and so fare it works like an iron horse.

So, in my research, I learned a lot about the truth and the falacy to these people's claims. I took a break to move from California to Washington and once I got here I took my collection of songs that I sing (that were burned in my key from my orignials - using microstudio of course) to a local bar. When I presented my CD, the host began to berate me about how that is illegal and he could get arrested if he played it and blah, blah, blah... well. I was stupified and tried to explain to him the law as I read it.

I went so far as to tell him that he was encroaching on MY rights. Even though I brought the originals to SHOW him that I had them, he wouldn't play the copy. I am no longer allowed to sing an this persons show, or even step near any of his stages. In that I considered this to be a huge slap in my face, I started my OWN karaoke company that has since put his company on the brink of extinction and built the best **** collection in my area. I know that I have the LARGEST collection of Broadway Showtunes in the United States, maybe the world (Thanks to KPro).

So, here is my point. In all my studies I came up with this question. Take the time to review your disks, the case they came in or the supporting inserts. Somewhere in that mess with 75% or more of the disks this disclaimer, or a similar one exists, "WARNING: This material is protected by Federal Copyright Laws, Unauthorized Duplication, Public Performance, or Broadcast is a Violation of Applicable Laws." What is "AUTHORIZED" duplication? AND Where do you get it? I sent requests to three manufacturers requesting "AUTHORIZATION" to duplicate my library. Not as an archive, to have TWO COPIES. I don't have a use for two systems, but I could have a very lucrative business, LICENSING and duplicating peoples libraries. I got NO response.

If there exists a lawyer out that that would be willing to consult with me on this issue, I would be VERY interested in starting a CLASS ACTION suit against these companies saying that we want the right to duplicate what we have AND if we want to have two systems running the IDENTICAL library, that we can (with HOSTER) dup it and pay a licensing fee for the songs we have CDs for.

[SteveWalker]

Originally posted by pcgumshoe
............ we want to have two systems running the IDENTICAL library, that we can (with HOSTER) dup it and pay a licensing fee for the songs we have CDs for. [/b]

I certainly agree that we can duplicate our CDG's as a backup ONLY copy. Further, I think we can use either the original or backup when we do a public performance. We need the original available somewhere to prove we have it.

I think you need to purchase another set of CDG's for your second show. The "licensing fee's" should cost you as much or more than buying the CDG's. Then you have to add in the cost of your lawyer. Nice try but I think you're overstepping on this one IMO.

Steve

[pcgumshoe]

Perhaps, but, in my opinion, it would be a lot easier to reconstruct my library from the disks I already have. I don't buy disks in sets. I didn't rush down and buy the Foundation I and II, nor did I buy any other set. My karaoke collection is that, a collection, hand crafted and selected from the choice CDs.

If I opted to duplicate my library in the manner you propose, I would have to shop at at least 10 different stores and they may not even stock all the CDs any more. It would be far easier to get a blanket licnese to duplicate, and yes I may be dreaming, but I am sending a letter to 3 manufacturers agains and asking, "What is 'Authorized' duplication and who has that authorization." Should put the word "unauthorized" on their CDs if NO ONE can get authorization.

[pcgumshoe]

One other thing:

Some time ago, I visited the Priddis website (http://www.priddis.com/license.htm) to review their license. Please take the time to click the link and read it for your self.

It is the most straight forward, refreshing license I have seen tod date. They allow you to copy the disk, even use tracks in demos with your voice recorded over it. For a set fee, you can use the track in a public performance.

You have to admit, this is the best license agreement I have seen

[George]

Re: Priddis,

Read it again. They do NOT allow you to duplicate or record the disc unless you record yourself singing to it. That means no back up.

George

[pcgumshoe]

And it does not expressly prohibit "ARCHIVE" It seems I spoke to them (and I followed up just now with an email) about archives and they consider their music to be software and the appropriate rights are granted.

By the way, I believe that Priddis has a religious affiliation. They do produce some decent pop/broadway recordings.

But on the face, you are correct.

Someone once said, "It is far easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission."

[George]

Sounds like they're talking out of both sides of the mouth. Their statement on the website is very clear.

Please note that purchase of our music does not include the right to duplicate or record our music. An exception being the recording of a demo-tape in which the customer's voice is recorded with our music.

If you can't duplicate, how can you make an archive?

George

[SteveWalker]

Originally posted by pcgumshoe
...., I would have to shop at at least 10 different stores and they may not even stock all the CDs any more. It would be far easier to get a blanket licnese to duplicate, and yes I may be dreaming, but I am sending a letter to 3 manufacturers agains and asking,

I do understand your point and we all would have this problem. I have the original set of Pioneer CDG's and a year later Pioneer changed some of them by replacing some titles on same numbered CDG's to confuse things even more. Put yourself in the manufacturers place and think how you would possibly identify each person that wants to do what you suggest. Could they verify you own the originals? Will they grant you a license to duplicate only one set? The logistics of this seems quite impossible.

Steve

[pcgumshoe]

In answer to your question, with HOSTER, you don't duplicate it, you ARCHIVE IT! it can't be used EXCEPT as an archive

[George]

You were talking in terms of "making a copy" when you started out, pure and simple.

If one really wants to split hairs, you do not archive when you put songs into Hoster. An archive is where records are stored, and that's not Hoster's purpose.

[pcgumshoe]

Well, I will wait to see what they say... In any regard, no one has been so bold with a licensing agreement. Can anyone show another company that does this?

[George]

Here's the one that has always given me a good laugh. So's some won't think I'm making this up, the Brand is ALL HITS, and it's VOLUME 8012 MEGASTANDARDS.

It's done quite well, a good selection of oldies, but I've never understood where they were coming from when on the back they say:

"Not for public performance unless played at full volume."

[jaddams]

Originally posted by George
"Not for public performance unless played at full volume."

I really got a good laugh on that one. Thanks George, I needed that!!!

Jon

[pcgumshoe]

I have the same thing on one of mine,

I guess at my bar, we are within the performance rights