Internet, downloading, and karaoke

[mindonstrike]

Maybe I'm confused, but isn't there something in the posting rules about recommending someone elses products?

You are not confused at all.
It's also just plain bad manners.

Sam

[George]

Originally Posted by mindonstrike

It's also just plain bad manners.Sam

Yeah, about like strolling into a Rodeo Drive boutique wearing a "Shop Walmart" sign.

George

A very credible source that follows all law suits in this industry informed us that at least 7 of the major Karaoke Producers have refused to pay them for more than 10 years.

We have been told that the major producer now has $19 MILLION in suits against them.

The second largest is just under them.

Does this mean that anyone using discs produced by these companies could find themselves liable for prosecution? After all, even though the discs were bought in good faith, the fees/royalties haven't been paid.

If this is the case, in the best interests of KJ's everywhere, these producers should be named.

It also raises the question of whether or not these producers have the right to refuse permission to anyone that wishes to rip these discs to hard drives.

[admin]

Originally Posted by BloodyLegend

Does this mean that anyone using discs produced by these companies could find themselves liable for prosecution? After all, even though the discs were bought in good faith, the fees/royalties haven't been paid.

It also raises the question of whether or not these producers have the right to refuse permission to anyone that wishes to rip these discs to hard drives.

To my understanding, if you buy a disc in good faith from a factory authorized dealer/distributor (versus an illegal copy or making a copy yourself from a disc you don't own), then you havethe right to use the songs on that disc. If the producer hasn't paid royalties and licenses, then the courts are going after them for their illegal actions. The $19 million of suits against one producer were settled out of court for about $5 mill. That opens up the Licensing companies to suits now from those producers who have paid the licenses and royalties all along. Interesting times ahead.

It has never been tested in court, but research done indicates that the legal owner of a disc can "format shift" the contents by importing to a hard drive. However, rest assured that copyright law doesn't change by the whim of a producer. Most of the discs you own now probably have an incredible statment like "not for public performance". If producer's statments like these are legal, then why hasn't someone been sued for hosting a show in public?

[George]

Originally Posted by admin

Most of the discs you own now probably have an incredible statment like "not for public performance". If producer's statments like these are legal, then why hasn't someone been sued for hosting a show in public?

My favorite is on the back of ALL HITS 8012 MEGASTANDARDS.

Quote: "Not for public performance unless played at full volume"

Someone with a sense of humor poking fun at themselves and the industry, I guess.

George

[Digital Party]

Originally Posted by George

My favorite is on the back of ALL HITS 8012 MEGASTANDARDS.

Quote: "Not for public performance unless played at full volume"

Someone with a sense of humor poking fun at themselves and the industry, I guess.

George

Now that is a funny quote

Originally Posted by admin

To my understanding, if you buy a disc in good faith from a factory authorized dealer/distributor (versus an illegal copy or making a copy yourself from a disc you don't own), then you havethe right to use the songs on that disc. If the producer hasn't paid royalties and licenses, then the courts are going after them for their illegal actions.

I'm failing to see much difference between an illegal copy and a disc produced without royalties and licenses having been paid. Seems to me they are pretty much the same thing. I do concede that in some jurisdictions, having bought it in good faith would protect you from prosecution. But it must be remembered that there are places in the world where "good faith" is not a defence.

[Karaoke Meister]

You need to remember that there are a couple different licenses we're talking about here. Not all apply to karaoke directly because of the unusual nature of the beast itself.

Based on information from a variety of sources at different karaoke manufacturers the initial investigation into the synchronization license is done with a phone call and a hand shake. They work out the details as the disc goes into production in the studio. They finish up the studio work and send out the gold disc for pressing. It comes back and is sent out to distributors for further sales to the general public. Sometimes the licensing gets hosed up at the last minute after the disc has shipped. This is similar to what happened with the Sound Choice 8125 - Eagles disc. The person they talked with originally verbally granted rights but when the agent checked with Don Henley he denied the rights.

There are other rights for distributing songs - Master Use Rights, Mechanical Reproduction Licenses, Digital Licensing, Performance Licenses and many more.

The playback disclaimer for public performance no longer applies when proper licenses have been obtained from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC.
On a side note, MP3's purchased from most 'legal' MP3 retailers are not legal for playback and purchase by a commercial entity is a violation of the terms of use agreement. It requires written permission to use the tracks by a commercial entity. Same applies for YourMusic.com and the BMG Music Club. The CD's you purchase through them are not legal for playback no matter what licenses you obtain. It's a direct violation of the terms of use agreement with the company and they can refuse to sell to you as a commercial entity or as an individual if you transfer the product to a company for use.

It's a strange world with all the licensing and such... but after lots of reseach I was only more confused!

And in my discussions with a couple lawyers the general concensus was that a purchaser of an unlicensed CDG was NOT liable because of the unnecessary amount of effort required to determine if licensing was obtained. It's generally assumed that licensing was obtained prior to production of the product and the manufacturer would be held liable for the entire run of product. It's also not cheap to prosecute the crime in civil court so going after the end user isn't practical. Civil torts generally go after the person with the deep pockets.

[swany]

REMOVED They make custom disks at $1 per track all soundchoice. I would think they would be out of business if doing something wrong. But you make the list of songs you want and you don't have to pay for something you don't.

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by swany

www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com(website address x'ed out by Sam) They make custom disks at $1 per track all soundchoice. I would think they would be out of business if doing something wrong. But you make the list of songs you want and you don't have to pay for something you don't.

I know for a fact Sound Choice will not release songs to custom burn sites untill the songs are at least a couple months old.
They have songs released by SoundChoice just a couple of weeks ago which proves they are pirates

Why they and others like them are permitted to remain in business is the subject of much speculation on different karaoke forums.

At somepoint, someway, someday, they will get theirs . When they do go down I wouldn't want my name and address in their database.

Sam