Sound Choice ending Mediacloq protection!!!

[kjzone]

SoundChoice has discontinuted putting MediaCloq on their discs...

Apparently this is in response to Philips NV, the Netherlands (the patent holder) demands that they immediately stop using the MediaCloq, as it violates certain aspects of their patent.

Philips holds about 90% of all patents pertaining to CD authoring.

If you have a SoundChoice MediaCloq protected discs SoundChoice will replace these with a NON-MediaCloq Protected Disc by calling their 800 number.

[danny_g]

That may be so but if they still insist on Kapa's definition of what is legal maybe we should still boycot them.

[jaddams]

Danny_G,

In my opinion, you are right on the money on that one!

Here are two very confusing answers to a couple of questions posed on the Kapa Website, and Kapa’s answers:

Question:
Am I allowed to make a copy of my discs for archive purposes?

Answer:
This is one of the most confusing issues involving copyrighted music. It is also one of the arguments often presented by those who want to break the copyright laws. This entire issue revolves around the definition of the class of copyrighted material. By law, you are permitted to make an archive copy of "Software" class copyrighted material.

However, music (including Karaoke CDG’s) 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.

Question:
May I use an archived copy of a CDG that I broke in my show?

Answer:
No. As explained above, no such archived copy should have been made in the first place. If you have a damaged disc, you should contact the manufacturer. Some Karaoke music companies have replacement policies that will permit you to replace the damaged disc at less than the full price of a new disc.

For those of you who are interested in learning more about Danny_g’s points, here is the link to Kapa

http://www.karaokeantipiracyagency.com/info-law.html

Regards,

Jon

[danny_g]

Okay in referance to the last question- what do you do if the disc that breaks is no longer manufactured due to either the manufacturer losing the rights to songs on that disc, ie SC8125 or the manufacturer no longer makes CDG discs such as Pioneer, Radio Starz etc.

[kjzone]

1. The Federal Courts have already rulled that it is legal for one who owns a origianal disc of any type to make a back up of that disc.

2. If you have an original disc and didn't make a back up an that disc, and is no longer manufactured by a company....you are out of luck.

3. Kapa's Website's answers are theirs and not neccessarily what the courts have said and in many cases haven't even rulled on yet.

Example: Kapa saying that CD+G fall under the Phonorecord Class is their version, this is not what the U.S. Code says. Phonorecord is defined by the Code as Vinyl Records and not CD+G or even CD's. KAPA would like them to be covered under Phonorecord, but they are just NOT.

[Wildbill]

Sound Choice recently intercepted a friend of mine with a seizure warrant (served by the sherrif) for Copyright Infringement (aka: Piracy).

He lost revenues that night, and was also let go by the establishment, although he had been there for over two years performing.

The seizure warrant included search and seize at his office/home.

The home office search revealed that the KJ had originals for every copy that he was using, protected within a fireproof safe in an air conditioned room.

In court the judge found the KJ not guilty, ruling that since Sound Choice, and many other companies profess their work to be "Software", not phonorecord (or audio of any type), and have been granted copyrights under that classification, that it falls into the category of computer software.

The judge ruled that under the copyright laws (and most "End User Licenses") the purchaser of "Software" does not own it but is granted a license to use. Each license is granted to use on a single machine unless a "Site" or "Volume" license is purchased.

Since the license is granted for single use by an individual or company the use of the software may be on any type of computer media, original CD, CD/R replication, computer hard drive, Jazz disc, Zip disc, etc., provided it may only be used one at a time.

Example: Mr Musical (hypothetical company) has 6 KJ's and 1 set of original CD+G's. He has six parties scheduled for the fourth of July weekend. So he made six copies of the originals and archived the originals for safe-keeping (sic pun!).

He has parties on Friday at 11am-2pm, 2pm-9pm, 7:30pm-11:30pm.

KJ #1 begins his party at 11am and finishes at 2pm (copy #1)
KJ #2 begins his party at 2pm (copy #2)
KJ #3 begins his party at 7:30pm (copy #3)

KJ's #1 and #2 are operating within the definition of the software licensing agreement.

KJ #3, beginning while KJ #2 is still using the software is blatanly operating outside of the licensing agreement, and the company is now liable for "Violation of License Agreement."

To Sound Choice, and all of the Karaoke producers I wish to extend a suggestion that will increase your revenues and permit companies with multiple employees to operate legally. Let's see which company is the first to adopt any them:

1) When a company purchases a CD+G they would be liable to disclose the number of KJ's that could be using the disc (or copy of same) and pay an additional amount (one dollar $1.00 would be nice) per KJ.

2) Pay a "Site Licensing" fee annually for the right of all KJ's in the company to utilize copies of the software.

Thanks,
DJ Wild Bill

[kjzone]

WildBill......

Thanks for this information.

I have stated before in these forums that CD+G's and CD's are not covered under the Copyright Laws....just Phonograph records.

Sound Choice and other companies have tried to lump CD+G into this catagory, but the Judge apparently saw through this and ruled correctly.

Your friend apparently did get good legal advice and proceed to court, as Sound Choice and other companies try very hard to get the alledged violator to sign a "Consent Agreement" and the case never goes to Court.

I am curious though, if he went to Federal District Court or did Sound Choice try to proceed in the Local Civil Court.

As Copyright law is Federal Law, Local Civil Courts have NO JURISDICTION OR VENUE for such cases and a Motion to Dismiss should be filed, if they try to sue in Local Civil Courts, prior to an Answer to the Complaint, based on Jurisdictiona and Venue.

If seizure occurrs, one should immediately file in Local Civil Court a "REPLEVIN" and "DETINUE" Action against the Plaintiff for Immediate return of their Property, the Local Court has Jurisdiction and Venue in this matter.

kjzone
Paralegal

[jimbo]

As I understand it, in Wildbill's example KJ #1 and #2 are in violation of the law. "Each license is granted to use on a single machine unless a "Site" or "Volume" license is purchased." Even though they have shows at different times, they are on different machines. "Since the license is granted for 'single' use by any individual or company" Having six copies is a violation, unless a "site" or "volume" license is purchased.

As I understand it, many karaoke companies do offer the "site" or "volume" license, but it wouldn't be worth it unless you ran many shows at the same time. You'd probally have to contact each company, let them know what songs you want, and see what they would charge. For just six systems, is probably cheaper to buy six CDG's. The karaoke companies would have to charge enough per song to cover many costs as well.

CD's and CDG's may not be covered under "Phonograph" copyright laws, but are covered under "software" copyright laws. When karaoke companies produce their recordings, they "copyright" their rendition, as well as pay royalties to writers and musicians. They also have to pay lyric reprint fees and obtain permission to reprint lyrics (and CDG them). Sometimes the lyrics reprint permission is not given, and the song cannot be CDG'd by the company (Like Disney songs). That is why sometimes you'll see some songs "dissappear" from libraries or get replaced by other songs. If the karaoke company continued to sell unlicensed CDG songs (without the lyrics reprint license), they are in violation of the law.

Other thoughts?

Jimbo

[christian55]

It is illegal under the Fair Use Law to make more than one backup copy of sound recordings or Software. Karaoke isn’t considered “Computer Software” and doesn’t fall under the “Single Machine” use that you claim it does. Single Machine use isn’t a copyright issue, it’s a separate license that software companies grant you separately when you purchase their software. In your hypothetical KJ situation where the KJ company purchased one copy of the music, made six copies, then hired 3 KJ’s to do a show, is illegal Here’s why.

1. Karaoke is protected under the Sound Recording Copyright Law, not Software or End User agreements
made between software companies and the consumer.

2. “U.S. Code” as you say it concerning “Phonorecord” includes any recordable media, not just Vinyl Records.

3. Karaoke companies pay several licenses to produce the content including but not limited to:
Mechanical License: the right to reproduce the SOUND RECORDING.
Sync License: the right to use CD+G (NOTE: THIS IS NOT A SOFTWARE LICENSE)
Re-print License: the right to reprint the lyrics on screen and on printed media.

4. Software companies have the right to give you whatever license they please which
coincidentally, a person agrees to when they break the seal of a piece of Software.

5. The term “Phono Record” that you use so lightly covers, CDs, tapes, Digital files (MP3s, etc), and
ANY other media used to play and/or record sound and music

6. Even though the “Single Machine” term doesn’t apply, you’re still reporting in error. For software, use is limited to the software being installed on a Single Machine, for SINGLE USE. It does not cover multiple copies for multiple employees, used multiple times. It never has been and it never will.

7. One can purchase a “Company License” that give the user certain rights. Example. Priddis Music provides a license agreement for such a thing. Depending upon usage, a user can expect to pay from $100-$1500 per song. It’s cheaper for a KJ to buy another disc. In fact, it may be lower. Has a KJ ever requested a multiple use license?

8. In Section 108 of the Copyright law, whether it’s software or music, the “Backup Copy” is used for archive, not for use or performance.

9. If the KJ is playing his music in a club or publicly, ex: anywhere except his home or in front of his family, he needs to obtain a performance license.

The bottom line is that making several copies so that an entire DJ/KJ company can use the songs is illegal. It cheats the karaoke companies that you rely on to produce the music that your clients enjoy singing. Just as you may think it’s unfair that this KJ lost the account that he was using illegal music in, it too is unfair that the karaoke company lost out on revenues from his illegal behavior. Even though the local court didn’t rule in favor of the karaoke company, you didn’t report the whole story. Illegal behavior like this only hurts your business. There are so many points to argue. In Section 114, it states that 50% of proceed gained from transmission of sound recordings shall be paid to the copyright owner. Do any karaoke companies go after that one? How would you like to be forced into paying 50% of your income to the karaoke music manufacturers? I didn’t think so.

Buying a separate original copy of music for every KJ seems like a small price to pay. Wouldn’t you rather be legal and continue to have karaoke music to buy and play at your gigs. On another note, the RIAA just announced that by the end of the year, thousands of law suits will be filed to individuals sharing music over the net. When will KJs be the focus of the RIAA? I’ll bet sooner than later. If I was a KJ, I would make sure I’m legal.

On a positive note for KJs. I know Priddis offers a disc replacement to all KJs if their Priddis Disc becomes damaged or unplayable, they’ll replace it. Send the disc in for replacement. At one point, I know they were even replacing the competitions damaged discs if they had the songs in their own catalog.

KJs are an important part of making karaoke available to the masses, and a key element in delivering new songs on a gig-to-gig basis. Most karaoke companies will reward KJs for being honest and legitimate. If you’re a KJ wanting to be legal, contact your music macufacturer and see what kind of agreement you and the karaoke company can come up with. Let’s help each other out by being legal and then we’ll all have a business that will last.

References: Copyright Law, Section 108 Limitations on exclusive right: Reproduction by libraries and archives; Section 101 – Definitions; Section 117 – Limitations on exclusive Rights – Computer Software; Section 118 – Performance and broadcasting.

[DougC]

Christian,

Thank you for the detailed clarification from a manufacturer's point of view. I think this helps all of us to see things in your light as well as fostering beneficial changes between manufacturer and KJ.

DougC

[danny_g]

Originally posted by christian55
It is illegal under the Fair Use Law to make more than one backup copy of sound recordings or Software. Karaoke isn’t considered “Computer Software” and doesn’t fall under the “Single Machine” use that you claim it does. Single Machine use isn’t a copyright issue, it’s a separate license that software companies grant you separately when you purchase their software.

[snip]

4. Software companies have the right to give you whatever license they please which
coincidentally, a person agrees to when they break the seal of a piece of Software.

8. In Section 108 of the Copyright law, whether it’s software or music, the “Backup Copy” is used for archive, not for use or performance.

[snip]

The bottom line is that making several copies so that an entire DJ/KJ company can use the songs is illegal. It cheats the karaoke companies that you rely on to produce the music that your clients enjoy singing. Just as you may think it’s unfair that this KJ lost the account that he was using illegal music in, it too is unfair that the karaoke company lost out on revenues from his illegal behavior. Even though the local court didn’t rule in favor of the karaoke company, you didn’t report the whole story. Illegal behavior like this only hurts your business. There are so many points to argue. In Section 114, it states that 50% of proceed gained from transmission of sound recordings shall be paid to the copyright owner. Do any karaoke companies go after that one? How would you like to be forced into paying 50% of your income to the karaoke music manufacturers? I didn’t think so.

Buying a separate original copy of music for every KJ seems like a small price to pay. Wouldn’t you rather be legal and continue to have karaoke music to buy and play at your gigs. On another note, the RIAA just announced that by the end of the year, thousands of law suits will be filed to individuals sharing music over the net. When will KJs be the focus of the RIAA? I’ll bet sooner than later. If I was a KJ, I would make sure I’m legal.

On a positive note for KJs. I know Priddis offers a disc replacement to all KJs if their Priddis Disc becomes damaged or unplayable, they’ll replace it. Send the disc in for replacement. At one point, I know they were even replacing the competitions damaged discs if they had the songs in their own catalog.

KJs are an important part of making karaoke available to the masses, and a key element in delivering new songs on a gig-to-gig basis. Most karaoke companies will reward KJs for being honest and legitimate. If you’re a KJ wanting to be legal, contact your music macufacturer and see what kind of agreement you and the karaoke company can come up with. Let’s help each other out by being legal and then we’ll all have a business that will last.

References: Copyright Law, Section 108 Limitations on exclusive right: Reproduction by libraries and archives; Section 101 – Definitions; Section 117 – Limitations on exclusive Rights – Computer Software; Section 118 – Performance and broadcasting.

you are right up to a point Christian.

I agree that the Karaoke company should have originals for every copy but to avoid destorying what might become your only copy of a particular CD+G disc, I do support the right to keep the originals as the archived copy otherwise what is the prupose of making such an archive. This would put products like Microstudio out of the personal business and leave only corporate business open to them. I will continue to place my original copies in a safe for safe keeping until I need them to replace the CD-R's I use at my shows when they wear out. I have had one too many manufacturers go out of business to chanc even one of my CD+G originals to constant use night after night.