The Lawsuits Have Started In Virgina

[billyo]

i apologized for double posting, i think the reason why they( KIAA and Sound Choice ) are looking at these things, ( besides the money ) it's because there are some KJ's that do a lot of shows and has people working for them, if you employ 5 people to do shows in 5 diff. venues, of course they will start looking at this,

[billyo]

I just learned that it is 99% legal to play songs/tunes that you bought in a store and that you paid for in a club or infront of people, from what i learned, they said that if you bought it from a store and you paid, lets say $10. for a disc, a portion of that goes to the artist, producers label makers etc. in other words everybody gets paid, and if you play a certain song/disc in a club or infront of people, those people might go out and buy the same disc and, this is what the people who made that disc wants, they want for you to go out and play the songs for people to hear, so i got to thinking Sound Choice might not be paying royalties to the artist and producers who made the original songs,and or may not have enough funds to pay them so they going after KJ's to get that MONEY to pay the original artist and KIAA is going along with them to get some, the latter ( bold letters ) is just my opinion

[Musicman51]

Well these were just some suggestions a couple of well intended kj's up here made was all. They both still use the old CDG disc, and welcome SC and their croonies to their show. And...ummm...i won't mention what they said they would do to them boys after they looked at their disc and decided they are indeed legal. But they are both small independent milk producers. And as i recall part of it was something about cows, and wondering how a person could sit down with a digital camera...well....nevermind.

[capnvic]

Ron,

Where were you that night? I noticed Paradiso and Moe's were on the list. Those two places are close to home...It makes me wonder if they are going to be hitting some of the private clubs as well....

[billyo]

Originally Posted by capnvic

Ron,

Where were you that night? I noticed Paradiso and Moe's were on the list. Those two places are close to home...It makes me wonder if they are going to be hitting some of the private clubs as well....

i don't think they will, in my opinion, private clubs are for members only, it's like playing in your own house, unless they are invited.

[muzicman144]

Originally Posted by billyo

i don't think they will, in my opinion, private clubs are for members only, it's like playing in your own house, unless they are invited.

I would tend to disagree with this statement. ASCAP/BMI?SESAC, etc. has no problem getting their money request in, and, no problem sitting in to hear what is played. A private club does not license illegal acts, IF, these suits prove to have merit.
I haven't seen a private club in my day that an invite was a problem at all. Some are strict, most have no door checkers, nor do they check membership cards. But sueing military clubs such as the Amercan Legion, VFW's etc. is just not a good publicity stunt at anytime, especially during a time of war or conflict (war is war no matter how it is worded)
I believe private clubs are targets just as open to the public clubs are. JMHO
muzicman144

[billyo]

Originally Posted by muzicman144

I would tend to disagree with this statement. ASCAP/BMI?SESAC, etc. has no problem getting their money request in, and, no problem sitting in to hear what is played. A private club does not license illegal acts, IF, these suits prove to have merit.
I haven't seen a private club in my day that an invite was a problem at all. Some are strict, most have no door checkers, nor do they check membership cards. But sueing military clubs such as the Amercan Legion, VFW's etc. is just not a good publicity stunt at anytime, especially during a time of war or conflict (war is war no matter how it is worded)
I believe private clubs are targets just as open to the public clubs are. JMHO
muzicman144

American Legion , VFW is in my opinion not really a private club,since they will sell drinks/food to the public,you could get in to those places as long as you know someone ,which i used to go and i am not a member of the org. i play in a country club which has sec. guard right by the gate and your name has to be listed in what they call guests list,or was invited by a member and still have to have your name on the list. a friend who was supposed to help me out set up my gears at one time tried to get in and they woudnt let him in , till i asked the club mgr. to let him in and put his name on the list.

[Rockrz]

Originally Posted by billyo

Sound Choice might not be paying royalties to the artist and producers who made the original songs,and or may not have enough funds to pay them so they going after KJ's to get that MONEY to pay the original artist and KIAA is going along with them to get some, the latter ( bold letters ) is just my opinion

Ever notice how some songs have a few lyrics that are wrong, or where the music has sections that are a little different from the original version?

This is what karaoke companies do when an artist (or their publisher) refuses to give authorization for their songs to be made into karaoke.

Supposedly, this is perfectly legal when a certain percentage of the song/ music is different from the original.

I heard this years ago, and there's gotta be some truth to it, otherwise why would karaoke companies make some songs with what most people would call errors due to being considerably different from the original.

I heard this from somebody who claimed to be good friends with a studio musician who has worked for Sound Choice on numerous projects where they planned to make sections of certain songs to be different than the originals.

Anybody ever hear about this?

[billyo]

[quote=Rockrz;100049]Ever notice how some songs have a few lyrics that are wrong, or where the music has sections that are a little different from the original version?

This is what karaoke companies do when an artist (or their publisher) refuses to give authorization for their songs to be made into karaoke.

in my opinion, i don't think that's true, otherwise most of these cdg companies would be doing this, i think they are not paying or may not have enough funds to pay the original producers/artist.and that is just my opinion, and i dont mean to imply anything.

Supposedly, this is perfectly legal when a certain percentage of the song/ music is different from the original.

no matter how little percentage of the songs/ music they changed, it's still not legal for them to change it.if you look at most of the songs on every disc they produced ,they always list the name of the original artist,
how would we know who did the songs on some of the older songs, without them putting the name of the artist on the label

[Rockrz]

If you've ever followed an artist that sues another artist for copyright infringement, claiming they are copying their song, it usually comes down to how large of a percentage is the alledged stolen song is like the original that determines who wins the case.

They actually have some sort of formula that figures this out and I think they do this with some software program.

Sure, on karaoke discs they like who the artist was and maybe who the publisher is that holds the rights to the song...but that doesn't mean the karaoke producer paid to re-produce the song on karaoke.

I've heard for years (nobody can prove this except for the karaoke producers, and they won't) that many of the karaoke producers, including Sound Choice, don't always pay license fees because there are ways around having to pay this expense and still not get the britches sued off of them.

It's be just like Sound Choice to screw the artist / publisher, and then turn around and claim some KJs are screwing them. Maybe they are reaping what they've sown

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by Rockrz

Ever notice how some songs have a few lyrics that are wrong, or where the music has sections that are a little different from the original version?

This is what karaoke companies do when an artist (or their publisher) refuses to give authorization for their songs to be made into karaoke.

Supposedly, this is perfectly legal when a certain percentage of the song/ music is different from the original.

I heard this years ago, and there's gotta be some truth to it, otherwise why would karaoke companies make some songs with what most people would call errors due to being considerably different from the original.

I heard this from somebody who claimed to be good friends with a studio musician who has worked for Sound Choice on numerous projects where they planned to make sections of certain songs to be different than the originals.

Anybody ever hear about this?

I have heard this but I do not believe it to be true.

Case in point:Parodies. If you look at the credits for parodies they will include the original song writers names as well as the parody writer. I believe also that there has to be substantial changes to a song before someone can add their name to the credits and share the royalties. If a song has the "look and feel" of another song, the original writers (or owners if the rights have been sold) will get credit

The movie industry is getting sued all the time over these things. Someone thinks that a new movie is too similiar to a book or screenplay they wrote and will sue, leaving it up to the courts to decide if a work is new or a derivative of someone elses.

[Rockrz]

Originally Posted by mindonstrike

I believe also that there has to be substantial changes to a song before someone can add their name to the credits and share the royalties

The subject I was talking about is karaoke companies changing a song just enough so they can somehow get away with not paying royalties to the original artist / publisher on the music and on the lyrics.

Even when doing this, they still list the original artist of the song on the karaoke disc. If they didn't, then nobody would know who sang they song.

I think we've all seen especially lyrics that are wrong and I know I've heard a few where the music was different in several places

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by Rockrz

The subject I was talking about is karaoke companies changing a song just enough so they can somehow get away with not paying royalties to the original artist / publisher on the music and on the lyrics.

Exactly. Usually at the end of every karaoke song (sometimes at the beginning and also on the paper insert with the cd) there is a page listing the writers, the publisher and the royalty collection agency that represents them (BMI, ASCAP etc) and usually the words "Used by permission". If the original artist is mentioned it is only for your information, not for any legal reasons as it doesn't mean squat for royalty collection purposes unless they also happened to be the writers. When I say "credits" I don't mean credit for making the song famous. I mean credit like shown on TV and Movies for who was involved in the production.

Even when doing this, they still list the original artist of the song on the karaoke disc. If they didn't, then nobody would know who sang they song.

Again the original artist is irrelevent unless you hear their voice or hear them playing the instruments. The only ones who matter are who wrote the lyrics and who wrote the music. Though the original artists are often listed on the cd they are not always listed on the cd. It's a customer service thing. Just to help make the sale to you.

I think we've all seen especially lyrics that are wrong and I know I've heard a few where the music was different in several places

Again it doesn't matter how many typos there are or how badly the music was performed, what matters is, is it the same song

[Musicman51]

Sure the American Legion club i've been at for the past 6 years also will allow the public in under certain circumstances. The fish fry, bingo, the area childrens christmas party, jam sessions we put on things like that. And we serve them booze as well except for the children's party. But on a friday night when i'm there doing karaoke twice a month, no public is allowed unless signed in.