Music Publishers Are Killing Karaoke

[jimbo]

Taken from Mi2N - Music Industry News Network. Could be could for MTU if the publishers are not able to provide on-screen lyrics. KPro would have to be used (however, what would the legal implications be?)

When karaoke first appeared in the U.S., some believed it was nothing more than a passing fad. Twenty years later, it's still going strong, but finds itself battling an unlikely foe. The karaoke industry is under attack from the big music publishers and many legitimate karaoke labels may not be able to survive the onslaught.

"Under the guise of fighting piracy and copyright infringement, music publishers are strong-arming unfair fees from licensed and royalty-paying karaoke companies to the tune of millions of dollars," said Rick Priddis, president of Priddis Music, Inc. "I've been in the karaoke business for more than 20 years, and all of a sudden I am looking at the prospect of losing my company because of the publishers' overly aggressive practices – and I'm not alone."

Unlike Napster, companies such as Priddis Music have been paying royalties under existing copyright laws. Although the music publishers have accepted those payments for years, Priddis Music and other karaoke companies are now finding themselves under the Napster-esque label of "willful infringers."

When Priddis started his business, he used cassettes with the song lyrics printed on paper. Mechanical or compulsory licenses were acquired for the recordings and reprint licenses for the lyrics. Priddis Music based its entire business tenure on the terms of the Compulsory License Act and similar mechanical licensing through the publishers' agent, the Harry Fox Agency. When technology changed from cassette to CD, Priddis and other karaoke producers changed the lyrics from paper to a TV screen, with no background images or movies, to display the lyrics.

"The copyright law provides for compulsory licensing of sound recordings," said Priddis. "The publishers don't seem to like the Compulsory License Act because it limits their control and regulates what they can charge. With new technology for distributing music, the publishers have found a loophole in the outdated compulsory statutes and are using it like a sword. They are evading the 'pay-as-you-go' terms of compulsory licensing and are demanding synchronization fees because they claim the lyrics on the TV screen are "synched up" with the music. Now we are being told that we have to re-license all of our songs under synchronization licenses – with one-time up-front fees of up to $1,000 a song – or face litigation. In our business, we have to keep as many songs as possible in our catalogues, whether or not they sell well. With the prospect of re-licensing thousands of songs at a cost of millions of dollars, I don't know too many legitimate karaoke companies who can pay that kind of money and keep their doors open."

Priddis pointed out that the publishers are not above using force. He had been doing business with Hal Leonard Publishing, Warner Brothers Publications and the Harry Fox Agency since Priddis Music began. Under intense pressure from the publishers forcing the synchronization license issue, these companies simultaneously shut Priddis Music off from further reprint and mechanical licensing.

He noted that karaoke licensing is very different in the United Kingdom, where MCPS (the UK Harry Fox equivalent) is karaoke-friendly, not only offering fairly-priced mechanical licenses that include on-screen lyrics, but discounted pricing in order to encourage the karaoke market there. While U.S. publishers have agreed to the UK terms for UK karaoke companies, they are preventing hard-pressed U.S. karaoke companies from taking advantage of that program. U.S. agents require import licenses in order to stop anyone that has not paid their exorbitant fees.

"When I started my business," Priddis said, "I thought the Compulsory License Act was there to protect companies like mine that wanted to legitimately compete in the music marketplace, without coercion from publishers who try to squeeze out the 'little guys.' Now I've learned that the publishers will stop at nothing to make an extra buck. Remember, these are the people who went after the Girl Scouts some years ago for "singing around the campfire" and gave the world unhappybirthday.com, where you are asked to turn in people who sing Happy Birthday without paying fees.

"The great irony in all of this is that the publishers, while claiming their actions are trying to root out pirates and willful infringers, are making sure that only the pirates will survive," Priddis said. "The true infringers have never paid fees and never will. If this continues, those of us who have paid fees and royalties all along will be forced out of business, and then everybody loses."

Priddis is a customer of MTU.

[George]

I'm sure bigger brains than me have thought of this, but perhaps not.

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 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.

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.

George

So what's your point?

[George]

Originally Posted by George

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.

George

I thought is was clear, let me rephrase the point.

Since synchronization of lyrics and music obviously existed as far back as the twenties, IF the synchronization loophole they are grabbing onto now existed all those years, and the music industry DID NOT collect the fees they are screaming for now, did they in fact in the eyes of the law establish a precedent? Can what they are doing be challanged on that basis?

I'd sure want to know if my company's survival depended on it.

George

[Digital Party]

They gonna come after the little guy with the show at the bar down the street next???

[nreel]

It's called Ex-Post-Facto. Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed.

Meaning, if you didn't do anything about it at the time, you can't say anything in the future.

The question is, did the "Sing Along With Mitch" show pay the Sync Rights?

The following has nothing to do with Music, but, it can sure enlighten one as to what can happen if you don't NIP something in the BUD.

I remember watching an episode of the People's Court (Judge Wapner) where a home was sold to an unknowing Buyer that, after buying the home, observered that High School kids were using his yard as a Short-Cut to School. The new Homeowner put up a fence to eliminate the Short-Cut. He was, subsequently, sued to have the fence removed in order to have the Short-Cut restored.

The Judge ruled that, since the Short-Cut was used for several years and nothing was done, prior, to prevent the kids from using it, the Short-Cut became an established "Community" path.

The new Homeowner was ordered to remove the fence and to allow the Community to use the Short-Cut.


Norm

[Digital Party]

Well that was BS That he had to remove the fence that is.....

[Karaoke John]

Hi Guys and Gal's
Being old enough to remember the sing along with Mitch show and watching those old sing along films and even Cartoons as a kid. I think that All this fuss the music company's make is nothin but whooey. The performers probably don't see much of the money they are asking for. Unless they are really mega superstars and own all the publishing rights. The music companys are greedy they aren't looking any farther than the nose on thier face haven't seen them jump on new technology very fast over the years. It has always been the little independent guys and gals who same to themselves "There has to be something better, A better way to do this". If it was up to the music industry we would still be using Edison phonographs.They always wait for someone else to invent it, start using it and when it gets popular, they scream for thier share of the pie and think we should get a sliver.
The Music industry should get down on thier knees and thank God for karaoke, Napster, and all the other technology that has come out. Because it promotes thier songs. I personally know some big name Country stars who tell me that they feel a gratification that people want to sing thier songs. To bad Don Henley doesn't feel the same way he hates Karaoke. I have personally boycotted buying anymore of his material ie: disks that are just Eagles, Don Henley, and certainley any audio only Eagle's, Henley. Sorry I'm just not willing to pay $400.00 for Sound Choice's 8125 disk.
The new technology for show's is now running from a computer whether Laptop or desktop ect. What a great idea. I just found out about this technology a few months ago and what has the music companies done multi session disks, and some other types of copyright to make importing to your harddrive harder or almost impossible. Talk about stupid . I now won't buy sound choice or chartbuster unless they are in the $2.99 bin. I never want to go back to having to hunt for discs and singers writing down the wrong number's etc. I just hope that the other companies don't follow the Chartbuster and Sound Choice procedure.
Sorry for being so lengthy but I just had to get this out. My point is that Technology is always evolving, and The music companies should be paving the way to make it easier and smoother not putting up road blocks and toll booths.
John

someone has to support thier 3 million dollar homes and cars and the small guy is always the first they come after

[Lauraine Graham- with the Lord]

Greetings all

My thought on reading the original thread is so astroundingly obvious that it MUST have been thought of already, BUT, if the UK is a much nicer place for the music business and karaoke in particular, why don't all the companies operate from here?

I am sure there some difficulties I haven't thought of -I rarely come up with a totally original idea - but all the same, some sort of voting with one's feet ought to send a message to these bullies. Mr Priddis, and others like him, ought to be supported and praised for their support of us. Otherwise the implications of what we do when we buy a backing track and CDG it is too frightening to contemplate.

regards to all

[jimbo]

The karaoke companies would love to run a business out of the UK, the only problem is the import laws regarding music and karaoke makes it basically impossible to do it in the UK and then import them into the US. There are HUGE import fees for such materials.

"While U.S. publishers have agreed to the UK terms for UK karaoke companies, they are preventing hard-pressed U.S. karaoke companies from taking advantage of that program. U.S. agents require import licenses in order to stop anyone that has not paid their exorbitant fees."

[Lvanett]

The RIAA is at the heart of this. Anyone who sympathizes with their cause will naturally believe the lies they spread. They want people to believe they're losing money because of downloaders, karaoke, lyrics sites, you name it. This is why they're so "sue-happy". Same for MPAA. If you want more info you can go to boycottriaa.com and see the truth behind their LIES. (Or, boycottmpaa.com for info on the MPAA.)

[Garry A. Leslie]

Hey All,
As an Oldie I also remember the sing-along films, cartoons and shorts of the
late 30's and 40's, here in the UK.
We also had Mitch Miller's sing alongs, George's idea about setting a precedent certainly seems valid.
The Fox Agency has been one of the major bullies, pulling lyrics and closing sites for years.
Here in the UK the situation is not better, because we pay through the nose for karaoke discs, a $ becomes a £. (1.80) dearer.
There is, because of this, widespread piracy, whole catalogues are available free and widely exchanged.
Regards from across the pond.
Garry

[Lvanett]

Can't say I'm surprised by that. Naturally if something is expensive there's the temptation to hack it, steal it, or do anything short of buying it.

As someone who buys mostly Christian accompaniment tracks, I know what you mean about paying thru the nose. With them, single songs are usually available in multiple keys, but the prices range from $8 to $10 per song. Talk about OUCH! Christian karaoke isn't popular either so that doesn't help. I try to find digital download sites that offer tracks for purchase. They only charge $.99 per track in that case.

[searcherone]

the is just another example of american businesses trying to find ways to squeeze money out of existing products that have already been purchased. The same thin is going on in the software industry with copyrights. Companys popping up buying old copyrights then trying to claim copyright fees for code that has been in use for 20 years... It's just sad...