Internet, downloading, and karaoke

[Karaoke Meister]

Generally they'll be REAL upset that you did this - especially if it's for commercial use.

No license for synching the graphics, no mechanical reproduction license to affice the song, no master use license to use the orginal recording. This is a law suit waiting to happen and you won't just loose - you'd get HAMMERED.

You 'might' get away with it if it's a parody, but using their music isn't going to fly. 'Could' you get away with it? Sure, but creating the timing and such for the music is more pain than just buying the tracks to begin with. Think about it. 88 cents per track for the music is about $14 per disc with 16 tracks and I can buy sound choice spotlight discs for just over $16 each online in the mortar set. My time is worth MUCH more than $2 - espcially since it would take an hour or more PER SONG to put the lyrics on and getting the timing down.

[jimbo]

Exactly!
Now what about all those who take the midi files and record their own version and sync it? Same problem legally. No licensing has been aquired. Even a parady would REQUIRE licensing. The original writer of the music is entitled to their fees.


Jim

[Karaoke Meister]

A parody would only require a mechanical reproduction license which costs about $43 because it requires prepayment of 500 copies. It would be different if offered in a digital format but you can get information at HFA.

Doing even a midi version requires a synch license. I thought about this a while back. Pick up a high end Roland Synth and use mid/kar files. You loose the backing vocals but it could actually be BETTER quality than some of the CDG's I've seen! Problem is the licensing....

Licensing drives a lot of the ways we can use music. And most of the time it's overly restrictive.

I'm actually about to talk to a local group about doing a karaoke album of their stuff. I'm going to see if I can get a copy of their masters from the studio so I'll use the SAME music they used on the album! Don't know how far it will go but it's original music so they own the rights to it. I'll do all the work and try to work out a deal on the profits. I'm only wanting to be able to sing the songs while out at karaoke. If I just recoup the production cost and/or the cost of the software to produce the tracks I'd be happy. If I'm real lucky they work out a deal to have me work with other local bands. Keep in mind it only applies to original music - nothing covered can be done this way without synch rights!

[George]

Karaoke is not new, just the name Karaoke. In the twenties, thirties and fourties, it was common in the movie theaters to have a "sing along" film between the features where the audience sang to a music background with lyrics on the screen and a bouncing ball "syncing up" the lyrics and music..

In the fifties or sixties this was brought to television by a bandleader named Mitch Miller, using the same principle. "Sing Along With Mitch" was born, and was a success. There we have music "synced up" with lyrics on a t.v.screen...

So really, the idea is far from new, just the manner in which it was put to use, depending on current technology at the time. Now shading the lyrics has replaced a bouncing ball. That's the only real difference.They both serve the same identical purpose.

Here's the reason for the history lesson.

This gives cause for one to wonder if the music industry may have bitten themselves in the foot by establishing a precedent years ago in allowing those old shows to take place over a span of perhaps fourty or fifty years without collecting any extra "synchronization fees", or did they?

I guess it would depend on when those fees came into existence, and/or if any such fees were collected even if it was in existence. Maybe no one thought to look at it in this perspective...you never know.

If in fact, the movie studios paid no "sync" fees for their "follow the bouncing ball", and Mitch Miller paid no "sync" fees for the Sing Along With Mitch Show, and the methods used then were considered in fact to be the same as present day "syncing" then perhaps, just perhaps if the present "sync" fees were challanged in court, they just might be declared invalid, since the music industry neglected to collect them in the past.

There is a legal basis that simply stated says if you didn't do anything about it in the past, then you can't do anything about it now. You established a precedent.

I've wondered right along what the outcome of a challange to the "sync" fees on that basis would be.

George

[Karaoke Meister]

I'm sure such a case would be a dismal failure on the part of those fighting the payment of synchronization rights. Why?

Because over the last 50 years they've stretched the copyright of a work from a short time, to the length of an author's life, to the length of their life plus 75 years. Because over the last couple years they've enacted new laws to 'tax' new technology based on the presumption that it will be used for illegal purposes (Home Recording Act of 1992 taxes DAT players and ALL DAT media). They've created a law that provides for a 'statutory' rate for covering an authors song (the Harry Fox Agency's nearly sole purpose is collecting and managing these fees).

Because they've added laws over the years to protect the copyright owners rights and only those works released before the law goes into effect are exempt from those fees. They can't create a law today taxing DAT players and then make it retroactive on all DAT players sold/manufactured before today's date. Sort of like saying 'I saw you doing something I didn't like so I had them make a law to make it illegal so now I'm arresting you because you did something yesterday that's against the law today'. Not real practical...

Keep in mind this is exactly what they did with a lot of the cleanups 'required' by the EPA (the dumping of certain toxins was legal when it happened but it's now illegal - the original dumping company has to clean it up!).

I'll see if I can dig up the actual law that deals with synchronization rights and I'll post a link here. It might be a couple days but if anyone runs into it before then post here to save me some time in looking it up.

On a side note, some of those songs might have been public domain works under the copyright law at the time. Chances are some of the record labels saw it as a great marketing tool as well and actually requested they become 'sing-a-longs'. And the main issue is not only the making of the tracks but the reproduction of those tracks on a rampant basis in digital form over the Internet and other 'file sharing' means.

[George]

Originally Posted by Karaoke Meister

I'm sure such a case would be a dismal failure on the part of those fighting the payment of synchronization rights. Why?

I wouldn't be so certain about that. I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

IF the SYNC provision of the copywrite laws existed, say when SING ALONG WITH MITCH was popular, and none were ever paid, and no attempt to collect them was made, then just because all of a sudden they see Karaoke exploding, and they try to collect them, they may not be given that legal right under the EX-POST-FACTO provision of the law.

It's a little known legal provision that does exist.

If that scenario is true, then they themselves established a precedent by not collecting the sync fees when they could have, and could lose the right to do so now.

George

[jimbo]

Mindonstike wrote: "Where on the walmart site do they have instrumentals. All I can find is new-age stuff."

Just go on the walmart download site. When you enter a song title or artists, make sure you add the work karaoke to it. For example "karaoke the rose" will bring up some songs, "Karaoke Shania Twain" if searching in the artists field will bring up a ton of songs.

Jim