While loaded with references to a certain lawsuit, this is meant as a discussion of KJ ethics and not yet another thread to argue a pending lawsuit.
Please forgive me as I ramble on for a bit:
After reading through many lawsuits over copyright issues concerning karaoke, especially the latest dispute between Digitrax and Universal, I have come to the conclusion that hosting karaoke is illegal no matter what good faith efforts a KJ makes to give the appearance of legality.
It’s time to face the facts, we are either pirates, or we are profiting from pirates, or both.
This is good news, because that means we have won the war against piracy.
If you can’t beat them, join them, or in our case, realize that we are already they.
Some of you may think I am joking or parodying the situation, but I assure you I am serious. The recent suit between Digitrax and Universal has made available information that has not been so easily accessible previously. The e-mail trails that have been submitted as exhibits, and the details included in the complaints from both sides have given a look into the licensing nightmare of karaoke that has been hidden from public view until now.
If you are concerned about piracy, and want to make an effort to do the right thing or even if you only want to give the impression that you are making that effort, you should spend a few dollars to read the documents from this lawsuit. You will not get a better education on licensing, copyright abuse, or publisher mindset from any seminar, karaoke summit, or forum thread. And after all, it is the publishers that have legal control of the content, not the producers.
So you want to be a KJ?
Well, get yourself some music and a venue to play in and you will be a KJ.
Can I buy that hard drive off craigslist with 200,000 songs? Is that legal music?
No, that’s not legal because the licensing fees to create and distribute that music was not paid by the seller of the hard drive.
Can I buy downloads from the download sites in the United Kingdom?
Well, according the publishers, that music was not properly licensed for distribution in the United States and may not have been licensed for creation in the first place.
Can I buy CDs from Ebay?
Well, it turns out that according to the publishers most of them have not been properly licensed for manufacture and distribution in the first place.
Can I buy a base library from a manufacturer that will certify me as a legal KJ?
Well, according to some publishers, they didn’t own the masters of their works when they made those sets so they aren’t properly licensed either.
Can I buy downloads from a distributor in Canada?
Well, according to their American competitors they are not properly licensed either.
But where can I get legal music?
There is no such thing.
That’s right.
For all the fussing and moaning over pirate KJs who have an unfair advantage over the “legit KJs” it turns out that in the eyes of the original owners of the music, we are all using illegally begotten music.
If you want to feel the self righteous satisfaction of knowing you are better than everyone else and that your library is the only legal library beyond compare without contention, then be prepared to do your shows with about three hundred songs from which to choose.
Therein lies the elusive even playing field.
A few random quotes from the perspective of a publisher in no particular order:
Quote:
The Karaoke Business
28.
Karaoke, which means "empty orchestra" in Japanese, is a multi-
million dollar business. Karaoke recordings are re-recordings of hit songs, with
the lead vocal tracks either omitted (instrumental) so that the consumer can "sing
along" as if he/she were the lead singer or, in the alternative, with a vocal track
sung by sound-alike artists (learning track) which in some formats can be muted
upon playback. Karaoke products are recorded and encoded to provide a
contemporaneous video display of the lyrics to the song for the consumer to sing
along.
29.
Because karaoke recordings incorporate the entirety or nearly the
entirety of a copyrighted musical composition, a fundamental legal requirement for
producing a karaoke record is a license for exploitation of the composition, which
must be obtained from the songwriter or his agent, generally called a "music
publisher," "publisher," or "administrator."
30.
Karaoke recordings are audiovisual works. Thus, unlike pure audio
sound recordings, in order to make, sell, and distribute karaoke recordings, the
manufacturer, seller, or distributor must obtain a "synchronization" license for the
graphical display of lyrics that appear on a monitor in a synchronized presentation
with the recorded music. The synchronization license typically grants rights for a
mechanical reproduction of the musical composition, the use of the lyrics in
synchronized graphic display, the right to use the copyright in an advertisement
and/or promotional use of the composition. Synchronization licenses also may
include a "print" permission for reproduction of the song's lyrics on lyric booklets
or inserts in the karaoke package. Pursuant to the synchronization licenses,
karaoke companies are required to pay fixing fees, to pay advances against future
royalties, and to account and pay royalties based upon the total number of units
manufactured, usually on a quarterly basis.
31.
Karaoke licensing is a significant part of Plaintiffs' business.
Unfortunately, the karaoke business has been and remains rampant with piracy.
Every year, thousands of Plaintiffs' works are used in karaoke recordings without
Plaintiffs' consent. Such recordings then are distributed throughout the world and
embodied in thousands of karaoke products and hardware, which are distributed
and sold without any compensation paid to Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs must be
extremely vigilant in identifying unauthorized uses of their compositions and are
constantly engaged in litigation to enforce their rights. One entity that had
engaged in rampant violations of Plaintiffs' copyrights was the company known as
"Chartbusters."
Quote:
No disrespect, but I think you are looking through rose colored glasses. I agree that all infringers should be made into revenue sources, but not that they should all be licensed. Some of them don't possess ethics, cannot be rehabilitated and therefore need to be litigated out of existence. We think some of the entities Digitrax has chosen to partner with fall into that litigated category rather than the licensed category. And that's why we require that Digitrax disclose where and with whom they are partnering before they do so as we have a right to keep our songs off KP Media out of JoltSoft services and not to be entertwined with SBI and Sunfly. Should you disagree, we are more than happy to pull our content from Digitrax too.
Quote:
Regarding Chartbusters, exactly what delusional drugs are you and your "highly regarded copyright specialists" taking? If a master recording is unlicensed and infringing, under no circumstances does the subsequent bankruptcy of the infringer and liquidation of the infringer's assets magically convert those recordings to legal, licensed status. It's frankly beyond bizarre you would even imply such an absurd theory. Even of the recordings had been properly licensed by Chartbusters, those licenses would not have been either assignable or subject to sublicensing.
Quote:
As far as the anti-piracy team. I am honestly shocked that you see the diatribes on DMN as helpful to the overall conversation. They are anything but! In the last one, Digitrax complained about ex-US karaoke manufacturers that are skirting the law, but yet has partnered with two of the worst offenders. So which is it Allen, are SBI and Sunfly pirates or partners? And if they are such great bedfellows, then why call out their tactics in a public forum?
Quote:
As to the no-fly list. I'm not buying that argument either. The goal should be to work with us to get those writers off the no-fly list. Publicly shaming them and characterizing them as ungreatful upstarts "one might think the songwriter might remember what brought them to fame and fortune..." (REALLY???), is just wholesale unproductive. Why don't you have the anti-piracy team write an unbiased account of history and include mentions to the companies that intentionally defrauded the songwriters to the tune of millions of dollars and then ask those same readers if its fair for those songwriters to be untrustworthy after over a decade of being cheated?
Quote:
Requirement 5. Sorry we cannot agree. Many of these manufacturers are infringing our content. While you are a point of sale, you would be only one point of sale for them. We don't wish to give them one distribution channel to fund their other illegal activities. They need to settle the infringing uses before we will allow those masters to be circulated in the service. Unless of course by rendering their position moot you mean that your client is going to take fiscal responsibility for those 3r d party's prior and subsequent business regardless of point of sale?
Quote:
We are aware of the terms of the non-binding, informal proposal pursuant to which your client paid $20,000 in advances. Whether or not that informal proposal itself constituted a license (we believe it did not), Digitrax is using recordings of our songs obtained from other sources that did not obtain licenses for those recordings and is also using our songs for apps that were not included in the informal proposal discussed. It doesn't matter whether or not Digitrax owns those apps or those recordings. Those are acts of copyright infringement that are not within the proposed terms discussed, and they are liable for those acts.
Quote:
I have to re-review my correspondence with SoundChoice, but I could swear the
Kurt told me that the licensed back rights excluded digital. Either way, (1) SoundChoice doesn't have any current licenses for UMPG content and (2) I am uncomfortable with multiple layers of licensing the masters (i.e. Stingray licensed to SoundChoice who in turn sub-licenses to Digitrax). As it presently stands, we're not approving SoundChoice masters, as they related to UMPG songs, to be incorporated into the Karaoke Cloud service. As an aside, I still have concerns about Digitrax too. The last statement I received from Stan was unacceptable (was late, there were songs with units but $0 payables, there master sources were omitted from the report, etc.), and am awaiting revised copy. Additionally the statements are noting that there are revenue streams
outside of the Cloud service. UMPG has only negotiated exploitation for the Cloud service, and any and all other uses are presently unauthorized. I am working with Alan to address, but I am less than pleased to know our copyrights are being exploited outside the scope of my original discussion with Alan.
Quote:
We are also aware that many of the Karaoke devices and recordings being exploited by Digitrax were obtained when the principals enforced their rights against their former debtor Tennessee Production Center (d/b/a Chartbusters), and that those devices and recordings were never properly licensed by TPC. The copyright infringement slate isn't wiped clean by such an acquisition, whether by virtue of a bankruptcy, liquidation, seizure of debtor assets or otherwise. Even if TPC had some form of valid license, the transfer of such assets to Digitrax would have clearly violated such
license.
Quote:
We know them generally as Chartbusters, but were aware they were actually a dba of Tennessee Production Center. Either way, they were exploiting thousands of unlicensed, infringing recordings that were later transferred to and exploited by your client Digitrax and their licensees. That claim alone is worth seven figures, even if a court were to award what is typically the minimum statutory damage award of $2000 per infringement. Many courts award $10,000 or more per infringement.
Quote:
38.
The terms and structure of the Proposed License were based upon the
parties' discussion and UMPG's understanding that the Karaoke Cloud was going
to be a digital service that DigiTrax would provide to its KJ customers — not the
foundation of a wholly new business model whereby a variety of businesses,
mobile content providers, and websites owned by third parties would be able to
leverage the "Karaoke Cloud" to provide content to their own customers. This
"business-to-business" model would have been a brand new business concept that
would have involved a different structure than the traditional karaoke license that
was contemplated and discussed by DigiTrax and UMPG.
What it comes down to is, if the publishers are not paid to their satisfaction, the product is not legal. So, to be a truly legal KJ, it seems one would need to negotiate directly with the publishers to legalize every song in one’s karaoke library. A daunting and expensive task indeed, but it would be the only certification that had true merit.
Quote:
I agree that all infringers should be made into revenue sources, but not that they should all be licensed. Some of them don't possess ethics, cannot be rehabilitated and therefore need to be litigated out of existence.
This to me, is a good attitude.
I wonder if it will be applied to KJs after the producers are gone?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Which all supports what CAVS told me, that the whole legal process used by the two suing manus is legal racketeering. They are attempting to sell protection to hosts for a product they really don't own the rights to fully. At best they can sell limited protection to a host, insure that after they get their pay off they won't sue the host. If what I was doing for 19 years was truly illegal, I'm glad that I'm no longer engaged in illegal activity. Is there a statute of limitations?
