Internet, downloading, and karaoke

[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

[George]

The price alone tells you what's going on. $1.00 a song for S.C.and making a profit on that...get real.

George

[mindonstrike]

Kxxxxxxxxxxxxm is making a profit however Sound Choice, the songwriters, the publishers and all the honest KJ's are being robbed.


It's very patheticly ironic that they have a copyright notice on their website.

Sam

[swany]

Originally Posted by George

The price alone tells you what's going on. $1.00 a song for S.C.and making a profit on that...get real.

George

Don't really know if they are legal or not never bought anything from them and will wait and see, so far they have been in business for quite some time. However the $1 per track is not that far from what I'm paying a local music business for my CDGs, most of the custom makers are charging $5 per track and that includes CB and SC last CB I bought I paid $17 for out the door with 15 tracks on it. A custom CDG at $5 per track would have been over $75 and that my friends is why these people are doing business. When SC and the other majors offer custom CDGs for a much smaller fee, that woud put them out of business for good. Which is what they should do instead of trying to get them in court which would take years and may never get them. I being one that would cheer the manufacturers if they would. I've been buying a lot of my stuff from Wal-Mart and at $9.72 for ten songs is not that bad and the quality seems to be right up there. Long as I need new music, I'll buy quality if it means I have to buy SC or CB but if Wal-Mart has the same songs for $8 less well that means I'll do my grocery shopping as well. Hey everybody havin fun yet? Sure hope so, with my last statement do say a prayer for all of our friends expecting that ornery lady Hurricane Rita. Take care and have fun. Swany

[Karaoke Meister]

I have a number of discs I've purchased at Wal-Mart, Fred Meyers, and a variety of other department and music stores.

Among these discs I've found a lack of quality in most of the discs and have avoided them like the plague because of this.

What brands do I avoid?
K-Tel (no lead in or splash screens on the song - it just 'starts')
Sybersound - sound quality is lacking
- the exception is the Original Artists series for Motown
and plenty of others.

What discs do I still puchase there? Only 2.
Priddis
Karaoke Bay

I've found both of these brands to be above average in quality - rivaling the quality of SC and CB in some cases.

But just because I can get 1500 songs for $100 doesn't mean I'd use them in a show. I actually paid less than $100 for my SGB collection and I had at least 1 disc I couldn't use (SGB 23) and a number that lacked in quality to the point I needed to replace them a short time after purchase. I now limit my purchases to SC, CB, PHM, THM, KaraokeBay, Priddis and a few overseas companies. I'm more concerned with QUALITY than anything else at my shows. Especially when my competition is using SAV-A and SAV-P that sometimes don't scroll the graphics, and have all sorts of other problems. I can't wait to get to that town (I'm about to move) and show the people there what a REAL karaoke show is supposed to be like. You know, one where $7 doesn't get you bumped up 5 spaces and $10 doesn't get you singing next. One where they don't use a cheap consumer player and lousy mics with short cables. One where they actually have effects and know how to use them.

[jimbo]

The only problem with buying karaoke music downloads is that it's just the audio, no graphics. Now, if a person wanted to invest a little money to save some money, they would just buy MTU's KHPro and download the $ .88 karaoke songs from Walmart and do their own graphics.
Now for the legalities---
1) Don't know how the publishers would feel about this though, because you don't have a sync license to do such a thing.
2) Are you adding to or enhancing a previously copyrighted work?
3) Is it for personal use or commercial use?


Jim

[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.

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by jimbo

The only problem with buying karaoke music downloads is that it's just the audio, no graphics. Now, if a person wanted to invest a little money to save some money, they would just buy MTU's KHPro and download the $ .88 karaoke songs from Walmart and do their own graphics.
Now for the legalities---
1) Don't know how the publishers would feel about this though, because you don't have a sync license to do such a thing.
2) Are you adding to or enhancing a previously copyrighted work?
3) Is it for personal use or commercial use?


Jim

Where on the walmart site do they have instrumentals. All I can find is new-age stuff. I've hunted all over the internet for instrumental tracks for sale or to commission someone to do a few. All I've found is a few sites in the UK with few premade instrumentals I'm interested in and custom mades seem to START at about $80. (a little to rich for me right now).

I've made a few songs in KPRO with devocalized tracks and they are so-so OK, but I'd really like to do some professional quality stuff.

Sam

[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