Karaoke Forums

Whether I was to agree with this or not is moot.  Where does Copyright law have loopholes that clearly don't state that a business person in a commerical setting CAN arbitrarily decide to make copies containing others copyright protected material and hand over the copies to their customers ?   I think that is QUITE clearly defined within Copyright law as not falling within any "fair use" laws.  In fact it's commercial copying to distribute,  pretty much appears totally unambiguous to me.  Reason being, It's clearly stated that you can't do that without permission of copyright holders. THAT isn't covered under fair use what-so-ever.  Even regarding copying to protect my investment that smartest thing I could do prior to ever allowing copies to leave my private home is to consult with a Copyright Atty.  

JMHO on what appears clear to me regarding how fair use leaves little ambiguity regarding DISTRIBUTION of others copyright protected material, and NONE in the commercial setting.  Whether a person will get busted ?  Unlikely I suppose but again, that too is moot..  I see nothing grey or ambiguous when you talk about copying to distribute.  As to whether there's some type of disclaimer that can be inscripted in such an event, I haven't a clue.. Again, ask your Atty.  Seems to me it's clearly written under no conditions can a commericial user copy and distribute protected material without expressed consent...etc

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Another question about recording a performance is consent of the singer.

Sure many may want to be recorded, others don't care but some people may not want a recording getting out for whatever reason. It may be that they don't want their work friends to know their karaoke habit, or it may be that they are a professional musician who does not want to get caught doing a shoddy version. Sometimes what happens in the karaoke bar stays there (or should).

I think just recording everything may get you in trouble with the singers. The singers are the ones you definitely need to keep happy.

Sure there are legal questions, and a lot of grey area there. But the chances of your show getting "busted" for violations on such actions are pretty slim.

A whole lot more KJs get shut down because they dont draw singers than get shut down by the legal system.

Don't do anything without approval of the singers, that will definitely get you in hot water, not rarely like all of the legal confusion where it is unlikely. (but still does not make it right).  


I think a very very funny thing I came across recently on the internet was at one of the music publisher's sites. I was trying to get their official take on karaoke, and of course they took the view that it was wrong/illegal.

The funny thing is at a different part of the site where they had their performers bios.  One of them claimed to be discovered by a music publisher when a relative sent in a recording of her singing karaoke!!!! I guess it is ok to bend the rules when it makes the music publisher money!!!

Kappy I do agree with many things you have said in this thread.  Most specifically that the courts make up the law as they go along without reguard to statute as written.  For this I think they should be fined and jailed.  What other professional doesn't have the guarntee his work?

But as to the subject of recording singer at a karaoke show I think you are way off base.

The recording is not a copy, it has some probably nasty vocals on it.  Does it have any commercial value.  No.  Could such a derivitive work be made by the singer at home if they bought a copy of the Karaoke disk and made at home?  No, they want to hear how they sound at the club.  Does the the recording have any possible use other than scholarly?  Yes, it will make a nice frisbee.  If there is anything protected by the "Fair Use" clause in U.S.C. 17, this would be it.  Fair use makes no mention of where, when, how, or by whom the recording is made.

I can't read a judge's mind and if I could it would probably be the wrong judge.  Could I be arrested for this and fined and jailed?  Of course.  You can be fined and jailed for what you eat (drug laws), what you wear(Helmet laws), where you are(tresspassing), what you breathe(drug laws), what you think(Civil Rights) .... free to do what?  But, recording a karaoke singer for evaluation purposes is legal according to statute (and of course I can't make a certain and declaritive statement without be accused or practicing law without a license unless I add) in my opinion.

_________________
Okay, who took my pants?

Ooops,  This is true Exweed,  In past threads I've prefaced stuff with "IMHO", Seems I slipped the past post or seven..  

OK,  Here's where you and I might disagree Exweed. I AGREE with what you are saying in terms of seemingly valueless, and to most of us it appears this way, yet WE are still making such a determination in a subjective area, this aside, where is the KJ expressed permission to form a derivation of work where one or more pieces on the compilation are likely protected by the following phrasing or comparable phrasing on even one CD-G song thats loaded onto a derivative compilation CD which contains Copyrighted work covered under the following unambiguous phrasing ?  


How does "sucky" singer and "for practice use only" give any license to a commercial user to make a determination superceding the above ? and how (as I recall, it's been at least 6 months since we were combing thru Copyright sections and subsections and I haven't retained what I read, don't recall specifics on any of this to be quite honest) is there grey or ambiguity regarding what isn't permitted assuming Copyright protected material is involved given this takes place within the commercial realm regarding distribution and recreation of strictly protected work.  Obviously the work is of value.  Assuming it weren't, WHY would the KJ be going thru the process ?  It's promotional ?  Still,  that's gain.  Is it's something with the Copyright protected work on it the singer wants ?  Has the singer paid the copyright holder royalties by paying the KJ ? Does the KJ have a license enabling him to form a derivative work containing copyright protected material and distribute copies ?  TO ME, this doesn't appear as balanced or taking the rights of the Copyright holder into consideration within such a process. What necessitates this type copying and distributing that can be said to be "reasonable" and taking ALL into consideration ? How is this not a clear violation of protected material that may not be arbitrarily copies for distribution in any form by the KJ without expressed consent  ?  Karen even stated (whether she meant to or not) "Great promotional tool", so it's TO PROMOTE something. Does the KJ have the right to copy and distribute this material ?  Seems all there is to this.

Now MTU, ( IP Justice ) seem to feel as you do Exweed (personally I probably do too , at least in terms of tiny thing not worthy of much, BUT... To me this is also clearly illegal activity based on *MY* understanding of Copyright law.  There's no grey here as I see it), backing up my costly investment due to lack of reasonable options I view as VERY different (for temporary use only to leave my home in the case of theft to originals).  But, Commercial Copyright Law, and aforementioned phrasing (likely to be found on at least some of a derivative CD's work) seems to leave NO ambiguity as to Commercial users rights to copy and distribute. As a business person *I* would never do this type thing.  Reason being, it's not necessary for the persons livelihood,  it's an added extra or bonus but it's not protecting ones investment such as 1:1 copying in cases of theft (that's what I was justifying months back, although THAT'S arguably quite wrong too according to many).  

JMHO..  (I can look this up again,  but I'm pretty lazy)

While I haven't scrutinized Fair Use, nor have I read sections and subsections of Copyright Law in quite some time,  I honestly don't believe there's much for federal courts to need to pull out've a hat, or "make up" in order to prosecute a person copying and distributing a CD where some of the work is strictly covered by the above phrasing.  Where the ambiguity.  While there's grey in Fair Use,  When a person Copies and Distributes to me this becomes more black or white.. What grants the KJ the right to form a derivative compilation, copy and distribute assuming the final product contains some strictly protected work, assuming it's valueless ?  To me and you it's valueless (but so are many CD's and CD-G's that just have backing assuming the bands are playing KORN and stuff like that ).  Obviously, and arguably these DO have value,  after-all, she stated "Great promotional tool".  Is the value tangibly measurable ?  Likely not.. But "Educational" and learning tool isn't a right most KJ's are granted unless the facility is covered as a place of education or a library (as I VERY vaguely recall, and again, I don't recall much)  BUT, Is OUR deeming something valueless of ANY value assuming a work is strictly protected and we aren't at liberty according to laws to distribute and reproduce the work at all ?

Yet I did mention something 1/2 year ago that I believe, and that's Guilt must be found in court.  So is anybody guilty of anything until tried ? I suppose not BUT, does this make it "legal" or acceptable ?  I doubt it.  It's something the KJ would be doing without proper authorization to distribute a derivative work, right ?

If a copyright atty told me it's OK because currently given ______ conditions at a bar with____ in the state of______ since CD-G_____ subject to exclusion under______ hence this is _________ and considered _______.

In such I case I'd likely_______

But so wouldn't we all

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

"The purpose of the fair-use doctrine is to ensure that courts “avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster.” Princeton Univ. Press v. Mich. Doc. Servs., Inc., 99 F.3d 1381, 1385 (6th Cir. 1996) (enbanc), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1156 (1997). Accordingly, § 107 of the Copyright Act provides that“the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not aninfringement of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 107. It further instructs district courts to consider the following factors in analyzing a claim of fair use:1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;2. the nature of the copyrighted work;3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Maybe I'm not reading this correctly - but I'll certainly advise patrons, "Hey, I'm giving you this CD because you need to listen to it - you apparently are under the misguided impression that you're a great singer - now go home, listen to it, and come back next week with a better rendition!"

and if your work is of "commercial nature" ?  How does that 4 part Fair Use Doctrine and it's subsections have loopholes leading you to believe copying and distributing in your particular case falls within grey area ?

Read this more carefully. Read what it states about "blanket exemptions" even in educational settings,  There are none.  
http://www.baker.edu/policies/copyright ... andout.pdf


Again,  I'm not trying to be trite.  I'm trying to share my understanding, and just discussing this because I find it pretty interesting to discuss (not argue of course ), to date it's pretty much hypothetical law since a KJ hasn't been tried (I don't think). Not saying you are guilty of anything, not my place.  Just saying based on your own admission and MY understanding of the Fair Use Doctrine you are quoting YOU WOULD NOT in any way be covered under Fair Use Doctrine as a Commercial user who's copying with intent to distribute material thats protected. This is clearly NOT covered under "educational" application if you read that carefully.  You are not an educator working and covered within a facility that's exempt. An entertainer supplying music and recreation at a bar isn't an "Educator".  *You* wouldn't be protected as a person who's freedoms of expression have been violated either (assuming you're copying and distributing). Read how the Fair Use Doctrine does and doesn't apply in commercial settings. Not ALL commercial settings aren't covered, but it seems to me copying and distributing CLEARLY is not covered. Freedom of expression isn't being denied to you, and assuming your were charged how has Copyright Law posed a conflict with your constitutional rights to expression ?  Artistic expression ? Creative works that just happen to cross over a line ?  Seems to me you are knowingly reproducing CD's with others protected work on them and distributing them as part of YOUR work

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Oh man !!   This is TOO funny.

I figured I'd search the web to try to find substantive cases where business people might've been exempted from Copyright law given certain conditions.

The 2nd heading that came up under my search was as follows..

 

My friggin thread here apologising for thinking Karaoke CD-G's were original artists..  HAHAHA..  OK my stupidity is now on display for the world to readily access !  I'm so proud of myself !

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Let's say your kid has a coloring book, he/she colors in it, rips out the page and sticks it on the fridge, grandma comes over, thinks it's the sweetest thing ever, mom takes it off the fridge, goes to the den, prints off a copy on her color printer, gives it to grandma, grandma takes it home and hangs it on her fridge.

No money has exchanged hands (except for the $200 check grandma cut mom to help out with expenses around the house).

The singer (kid) is coloring in the CDG manufacturers coloring book, the KJ (mom) is making a copy and handing it to singer (kid, grandma - whatever) to hang on her fridge.  Singer cuts the KJ a $5 check to help out (with expenses around the house).

Who's more in the wrong here?  The KJ because he's in a commercial setting or the mom at home.  Both CDG materials and coloring book pages are copyrighted.  Both have been altered and reproduced without permission.  No money exchanged hands (that the manus know about).  See how easy it is.  It happens all the time in a billion different ways.  Granted the KJ is a little more visible.  (Oh, IMHO).  :)

The big difference is that one is for personal use and other if for professional use. What's the difference? As a professional, you own a business which has certain liability that comes with it. You are making money off of your skills and talent, which means that what you do as a individual or business has to follow certain laws. The copyright law says that if you violate the law as a professional, whether for profit or not, you are liable for the consequences.

_________________

Seize the day and SING!!!

Karen I couldn't let this slide - I thought this was so funny. Thank you for throwing some humor in all this.

Loop holes - Because of my job I'm always looking for them. I just get mad when the small business gets squeezed out. Here we have some KJs trying to make a little extra cash by making CDs for their customers. If we actually did it the legal way we would loose money. This is why you get debates like this. I think everyone should consider the consequences and then decide if it is worth the chance. No judgement passed by me.  :D

_________________
[shadow=pink][glow=deepskyblue]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[updown]~*~ MONKEY BUSINESS KARAOKE~*~ [/shadow][/updown][/glow]

Been there done that - I've done the same thing Kappy. It seems our forum is cutting edge and gets googles attention.

_________________
[shadow=pink][glow=deepskyblue]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[updown]~*~ MONKEY BUSINESS KARAOKE~*~ [/shadow][/updown][/glow]

Babs - How does a singer listening to themselves sing a song constitute "professional"?  It's a colored version of a copyrighted work, just like the page from the coloring book.  The only difference I can see is someone who listens to themselves might want to return to the show more frequently to either get more songs or improve their coloring skills.  It's a by product of handing out the multi purpose frisbees.  And thus, benefits the show and the KJ's profession.  Alright - talked myself into it.  :)  But recording singers is STILL relative to coloring books!

Not a similar comparison unless in your analogy

PRIVATE USE
Child and Grandma represent private use where "intent" is to enjoy coloring book which might at times mean grandma does something stupid like gets carried away and sells copies of coloring books photostated copyright protected disney characters to aunt Bertha and Aunt Ethylene for $10 to handle the cost of shlepping to the libraries photostat machine, paper cost, as well as what in her demented mind she considers inflation on the quarter it cost her to photostat each page, factoring in trauma to her vericose veins having to stand on a hard floor. PRIVATE use allows margin for child-like behaviour and "fun and games" assuming intent, reasonable, and good faith are adhered to.  Private use does not always allow for this however !

COMMERCIAL USE
Grandma is an Ebay seller who as a practice (routinely) includes colored photostated copies of grandchilds colored in artwork (containing Right protected Disney Characters) in hopes to facilitate growth of *HER* coloring book sales business where on Coloring book it is expressed
You may not copy or distribute, in any form, any part of this Product for any purpose not specifically permitted by this Notice.    TM@ Disney yadda yadda yadda.  (Grandma does not have a license, or permission to do this.)
(I suppose on your rural farm on your private property the legally blind granny, and the young kid can also drive a motor vehicle to and from the barn assuming it stays on your private property, THEY CAN NOT on commercial roads. Certain laws just don't worry until something gets into public or commercial areas.
Granny, the ADULT businesswoman IS NOT extended the rights as a person acting within Commercial realm as granny the foolish cheapo that's making a few extra cents off've her relatives because shes a flaming goofball.
Commercial use while POSSIBLY forgiving of CERTAIN areas is VERY STRINGENT in terms of what it expects the commercial user to adhere to.  It's not lenient.  It assumes the business person IS NOT childlike and just funning around when it involves any aspect of their product.




Fair use Doctrine allows for consideration that includes "Intent" and "Reasonable accomodation" and "Good Faith" in cases of PRIVATE USE only.
It's all fun and games up until granny decides to go COMMERCIAL !


.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Right,  administration wants visibility.  Obviously to let the world know we're here Babs, we're just cool promotional tools

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

So if I wanted to copyright my posts here and they showed up on Google, then what?

You can't copyright your own posts, once you submit them they become part of Karaoke Scene copyrighted bulletin board.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Copyright © Karaoke Scene Magazine All Rights Reserved

This is at the bottom of every screen in the bottom right.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

I'm pretty sure this gets into "Intellectual Property" but when you are a non-professional SN who's agreed to yack on somebody elses forum THEIR TOS is what's binding.  It's my understanding that the non-professionals (such as we the casual posters) who've joined and electronically signed an agreement to adhere to Site TOS have little to no recourse (individually) assuming a person decides to copy our posts from here and write a book.  Any litigation assuming there was going to by any would be the call of Karaoke Scene (I believe). If a stand up comedian is smart enough to know that he can make a killing financially using Steven Kaplans material found in Karaoke Scene and I see this on Letterman Tonight (HAHA), I personally do not believe I have ANY personal recourse.  I believe I lose a certain amount of autonomy when I agree to join somebody elses forum.  Similarly those with patents who work for large industry often lose certain rights to THEIR personal ideas which become Patents of their employer.  We are just SN's yacking on a visible internet forum.

Regarding my own sites, or blogs, etc..  I believe that is very different.   Forums are not democracies.  In fact our constitutional rights don't even apply when we join somebody elses forum.  I can be banished at will for no reason, as can anyone in here.  We leave ourselves at the mercy of the owners of the venue we join. Internet law is a pretty different area.  An area I'm curious about too.

Similarly, as a member of this forum I've agreed to not condone "illegal" activities. Hence when somebody does something that appears clearly illegal to my understanding, whether I find the event trite or not I don't believe I'm expected to say "big deal who cares" assuming I understand quite well that something is illegal. According to Site TOS I have the right to agree that Illegal is wrong..  Whether I believe this or not personally is moot.  (JMHO),  this is *my* own understanding of how stuff works and nothing more !  It's my understand I have the right to have fun, get along, and adhere to site rules.  THOSE are the only rights I really have. So why do I post so much ?   Because I'm nuts !  (oh yeah, and for some reason I feel comfortable here with you guys)

   
       

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

heck I'm no copy right specialist - don't even pretend to be one on tv.  LMAO But I do like coloring books. How the heck do you stay in the lines? Oh man don't tell the color book police.

_________________
[shadow=pink][glow=deepskyblue]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[updown]~*~ MONKEY BUSINESS KARAOKE~*~ [/shadow][/updown][/glow]

Signs, Signs, Everywhere there're signs, messing up the scenery blowing my mind, pay this don't sell that can't you read the signs ?  


The sign says got to read the following print to play inside !

(What ever makes people think coloring books and toys aren't protected works ?)

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Taking liberties with the54 man electrical band and coloring books in the same post.  Well I guess some people like to live dangerously.

_________________
Okay, who took my pants?