Professional Musicians

[muzicman144]

Originally Posted by mindonstrike

You asked In this scenario it is not legal - no different than using the burnt disk for a karaoke show. If you own the original then yes it is legal.

If you recreate the music in your home studio and use that recreation in your performance then the music industry gets there royalties from ascap, bmi, etc. Those associations pool all those fees and split it up based on some mathematical formula and pay it to the song writers (original artist get some as well since this covers DJ's also). If you use a karaoke track then along with the association fees the song writers will get a royalty from the songs on that disk just as the songwriters and original artists will get a cut from the music CD the DJ purchases for his music.

Sam

I understand how the royalties are distributed, but i don't believe i'm explaining my question correctly. Your response seems to only address the karaoke issue of burning some one else's disc. I'm asking why one is illegal and the other is legal when both are using copyrighted music, re-created on a computer file and used in a paid performance.

Example 1.
A musician makes his own music tracks of a copyrighted song, using his own instruments in his home studio, puts it on a computer file and uses it in a paid performance at a club that pays its music industry fees. No one gets royalties from his use of the track, only the share from fees that the club pays the industry.

Examle 2.
i buy a karaoke disc, burn a track of the copy of a copyrighted song, put it on a computer file and use it in a paid performance at the same club that pays its music industry fees. The music industry collects the club fees PLUS the royalties from my purchase of the karaoke disc for distribution to those due compensation for their copyrighted works.

Quite a bit of difference

muzicman144

[ddouglass]

Originally Posted by muzicman144

Example 1.
A musician makes his own music tracks of a copyrighted song, using his own instruments in his home studio, puts it on a computer file and uses it in a paid performance at a club that pays its music industry fees. No one gets royalties from his use of the track, only the share from fees that the club pays the industry.

This is illegal because he did not pay the license fee to reproduce the songwriter's music which is copyrighted. In order for him to be legal he would have to contact ASCAP or BMI (whoever represents the writer/copyright holder) and obtain a license to reproduce the music. This is what the Karaoke Producers have to do to create the karaoke song files.

Originally Posted by muzicman144

Examle 2.
i buy a karaoke disc, burn a track of the copy of a copyrighted song, put it on a computer file and use it in a paid performance at the same club that pays its music industry fees. The music industry collects the club fees PLUS the royalties from my purchase of the karaoke disc for distribution to those due compensation for their copyrighted works.

The only disputed part of this is the change of format (CD to HD) and that is only in dispute by some Karaoke Producers. As you say all royalties and fees have been paid so is legal until a court case is determined.

[muzicman144]

Thanks. I have thought all along my friend was illegal in the way he performed his show. I apologize that i didn't explain my question in a
better way the first time.
jim

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by ddouglass

This is illegal because he did not pay the license fee to reproduce the songwriter's music which is copyrighted. In order for him to be legal he would have to contact ASCAP or BMI (whoever represents the writer/copyright holder) and obtain a license to reproduce the music. This is what the Karaoke Producers have to do to create the karaoke song files.

I would disagree on this point.

These are from ASCAPS's FAQ page:

Originally Posted by ASCAP

3. What Does the ASCAP License Do?

ASCAP gives you a license to entertain your customers, guests and employees with the world's largest musical repertory. One of the greatest advantages of the ASCAP license is that it give you the right to perform ANY or ALL of the millions of the musical works in our repertory. Whether your music is live, broadcast, transmitted or played via CD's or videos, your ASCAP license covers your performances. And with one license fee, ASCAP saves you the time, expense, and burden of contacting thousands of copyright owners.

And

Originally Posted by ASCAP

5. I want to record or videotape a song or record. Do I need permission, and how do I obtain it?

If you want to make copies of, or re-record an existing record, tape or CD, you will probably need the permission of both the music publisher and the record label. A music publisher owns the song (that is, the words and music) and a record company owns the "sound recording" (that is, what you hear... the artist singing, the musicians playing, the entire production).

If you plan to hire your own musicians and singers and create an original recording of a copyrighted song, then you need the permission of only the music publisher.

ASCAP does not license recording rights. Recording rights for most publishers are represented by the Harry Fox Agency:

Unfortunately you have to contact them with specific questions but it would appear to me that #3 would give you the right play back a music track you recorded for a public performance where you will either play along or sing along as long as the venue has the ASCAP license.
#5 appears to be applicable to those who want to sell or give away a CD of their performances

As long as your recordings are just aid to your public performance and not given away or for sale, the clubs ASCAP license will cover you and no other fee's or permissions would be required.This is why it's illegal to record your karaoke singers performance and give/sell them a copy.

IMHO
Sam

[ddouglass]

"If you plan to hire your own musicians and singers and create an original recording of a copyrighted song, then you need the permission of only the music publisher."
That right there says that the #1 scenario is illegal if he did not obtain permission to create his own recording. It says nothing about selling or giving it away, but just the fact that you record someone else's song without obtaining permission. You may not need a license but you do need their permission to do so.

[muzicman144]

Originally Posted by ddouglass

"If you plan to hire your own musicians and singers and create an original recording of a copyrighted song, then you need the permission of only the music publisher."
That right there says that the #1 scenario is illegal if he did not obtain permission to create his own recording. It says nothing about selling or giving it away, but just the fact that you record someone else's song without obtaining permission. You may not need a license but you do need their permission to do so.

my very point, at any point you re-create copy righted music for reuse in a commercial venue, you need to obtain the rights from the copyright owner to do so, or play the club fees, no matter how you use it.
Maybe some one can explain why they could possibly not need to do so.
muzicman144

[George]

Not so sure about that permission bit, at least at the recording artist level.

I find it hard to believe that performing artists who've had a recording of theirs "covered" by a more popular artist gave their permission to be knocked off the charts, and that happens all the time.

Little Richard had trouble early in his career with that very thing. He'd come out with a song, and suddenly there was Pat Boone and other more conservative singers with a toned down release of the same song.

Got so bad Little Richard finally came out with songs that were so way out there that Boone and the others didn't dare touch them for fear of looking foolish.

This all came out on an interview I saw a year or two back.

You wouldn't think the artists publishers would have agreed to it either. Wind up with an empty stable pretty fast. I think it's a very ambiguous area.

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by George

Not so sure about that permission bit, at least at the recording artist level.

I find it hard to believe that performing artists who've had a recording of theirs "covered" by a more popular artist gave their permission to be knocked off the charts, and that happens all the time.

Little Richard had trouble early in his career with that very thing. He'd come out with a song, and suddenly there was Pat Boone and other more conservative singers with a toned down release of the same song.

Got so bad Little Richard finally came out with songs that were so way out there that Boone and the others didn't dare touch them for fear of looking foolish.

This all came out on an interview I saw a year or two back.

You wouldn't think the artists publishers would have agreed to it either. Wind up with an empty stable pretty fast. I think it's a very ambiguous area.

From the FAQ at Harryfoxagency:

What is a Compulsory Mechanical License and the Statutory Rate?
If a composition has already been commercially recorded, and you wish to record and distribute that composition yourself (and you are not the original songwriter), you can obtain a compulsory mechanical license. This is outlined in section 115 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act. The Harry Fox Agency mechanical license is a written variation of the compulsory license. The royalty rate (what gets paid to the music publisher) is set by law, and is known as the "statutory rate." Effective January 1, 2006 the statutory mechanical rate is $.091 for songs 5 minutes or less, or $.0175 per minute or fraction thereof per copy for songs over 5 minutes.

If you can't negotiate a deal with the rights holder to record and distribute a song you can force them with this license. Unfortunately you can't do this with karaoke since there is no compulsory license dealing with the reproduction of written lyrics.

In a small atempt at thumbing there nose at Henley and Frye (who reportedly hate karaoke), SC put out a CDG of Eagles songs they titled "Read between the lines" - There were no lyrics, just the music and Henley/Frye couldn't stop them. The singer either had to know the lyrics or have KKHPro .

Even when I SEE old clips of Pat Boone singing Tutti Frutti, I can't picture it - LOL

Sam

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by muzicman144

my very point, at any point you re-create copy righted music for reuse in a commercial venue, you need to obtain the rights from the copyright owner to do so, or play the club fees, no matter how you use it.
Maybe some one can explain why they could possibly not need to do so.
muzicman144

I've sent an email to the Harry Fox Agency who handle the recording licenses aspect of things. Hopefully they will respond.

Sam