Karaoke Forums

BarryTone wrote:

As far as your comments on the expiration of licenses . . . this is a very big problem for music labels. It is one of the reasons for which several of them have been sued. There really is no way around this other than the scheme that you mentioned which is to open a separate distributorship and SELL the goods to that entity. The problem for the labels is in knowing just how much product to SELL to the distributor. If you give this a bit more thought, I'm sure you will begin to see the problems in using this scheme. Be as it may, even though it isn't the ideal solution, your observation is correct.

c. staley wrote:

There is no problem in deciding "just how much product to SELL to the distributor." Sell all of it. You are in effect selling it from your left pocket into your right pocket. Doesn't matter it's all a paper transaction anyway. Like licensing out the U.K. or Australia...

Here again you are shooting from the hip and not thinking this through. Should a label press 10,000 or 100,000 units to place in commerce? Even if a producer could correctly estimate the number of units that could be sold over let's say a 10 year period, what businessman in his right mind would invest in a product that produces a .1 inventory turn? Do you have any concept as to how something like this would affect a company's cash flow, especially when you multiply this by several hundred discs?[/quote]

BarryTone wrote:

Judging by your remarks regarding licensing compilations, I think you missed the point entirely. You may want to re-read that paragraph. Song selection has no bearing whatsoever on this matter. The most popular song on the compilation could be the one and only song (although in the majority of cases most songs) on that compilation which has a three year term. Referring to this as "simply an occupational hazzard", would be no more or no less akin to saying that KJs being indiscriminately sued by karaoke labels is an "occupational hazzard". I don't see why either should be the case.

Doesn't matter. The manufacturer knows exactly when that single track will expire, it's not a surprise is it? Time for a blow-out sale or sell it to your wholly-owned distributor. (Didn't Karaoke Warehouse own Top Tunes?)

You're making is sound like manufacturers are some sort of helpless victim when it comes to licensing. They're not, they've made millions, just ask them. (You can't claim to "lose millions" if you didn't first make millions and if you inherited millions and lost it, you'd be labeled an idiot. Wouldn't you agree?)

I don't know how else to articulate this issue to get you to understand the problem in this matter, but suffice it to say that what you are suggesting is downright silly. I don't mean to be offensive here but your comments are a result of some very shallow thinking. It never ceases to amaze me as to how certain people can so vociferously attempt to defend their rights in a $20.00 CD, yet at the same time be so insensitive to the rights of others that have invested thousands in the production of that CD.

Judging by previous comments that you've made, I can't help but wonder how you would react if you had invested anywhere between 8 and $15,000 in music costs alone for a 10 song CD, only to be told that after having paid an additional $25 to $30,000 in royalties that you can no longer sell YOUR sound recordings without securing an addition license.

Additionally, you still have provided no explaination as to how you relate this matter to that of a company's picking better songs. Am I missing something here? I'm really having difficulty finding the logic in your arguments. What on earth does the amount of profit or loss have to do with any of this? Are you suggesting that if a company made millions that they can't be victims? Also, have you ever heard of the term "copyright trolls"?

BarryTone wrote:

I sort of agree with your final comment, but probably not for the reasons you may think. The licensing process is very elusive. I guess we all have a tendency to put things in neat little boxes and color them black or white. The reality is that like most things in life there is an on-going dynamic that precludes that tendency.
Well, that may be true for some things, but not licensing. There are always a number of steps that are required in licensing of any kind, some more complicated and/or convoluted than others. But at the end of the day, either there is or there isn't a valid license in place. There is no room for a "grey area" of any kind and there's no such thing as a "sort of license."

c. staley wrote:

Judgments and injunctions prove that licensing on the part of manufacturers isn't as important to them as you'd lead us to believe. If the manufacturers are somehow dancing in the "grey area" that's their choice but I know if i ran a large commercial operation -like SC or CB - you can bet your bippy that licensing would be nailed down on paper with specified range and scope. There would be no question about it.

BarryTone wrote:

Judgments and injunctions prove nothing of the sort. They more often than not prove who had the better lawyers than anything that would resemble fairness. If you ran a commercial operation and waited to release your titles only after you had everthing "nailed down on paper with specified range and scope." The only thing that you would have accomplished is to put your employer out of business.

P.S. Sorry for the poor formatting. I am a "newbie" so please bear with me until I have this all figured out.

If I told you, then I'd have to kill you!

BarryTone wrote:

If you read the paragraph more carefully you would have understood that I was specific in stating that the copying would be to a CD-R for an archival copy. Secondly, I'm not leading you to believe anything. It is a fact that it most certainly is a gray area and will continue to be until such a case has been brought before a court of law. Lastly in this regard you again do not understand the priniciples of the argument. Plastic vs. iron oxide is a false dichotomy. There is a huge difference from a legal standpoint between copying a work or a compilation to another disc vs a mass storage device which is capable of storing a number of other discs on the same storage device.

There is no difference although you'd lead to believe there was one. You can copy tracks to a CDR or HD, and you can copy 1 track or several tracks on each of these media. You can copy a couple HUNDRED tracks (a dozen discs worth) on a CDR if they are MP3+G and they'll playback just dandy. So don't put the limitation on the media. Neither Kurt nor Derek Slep put any limits on the media - it was simply a "backup copy." You're simply splitting hairs.

BarryTone wrote:

c. staley wrote:

There is no problem in deciding "just how much product to SELL to the distributor." Sell all of it. You are in effect selling it from your left pocket into your right pocket. Doesn't matter it's all a paper transaction anyway. Like licensing out the U.K. or Australia...

Here again you are shooting from the hip and not thinking this through. Should a label press 10,000 or 100,000 units to place in commerce? Even if a producer could correctly estimate the number of units that could be sold over let's say a 10 year period, what businessman in his right mind would invest in a product that produces a .1 inventory turn? Do you have any concept as to how something like this would affect a company's cash flow, especially when you multiply this by several hundred discs?

This is not as complicated as you make this out to be. A label should press as many units as they have licensed. How many you license is simply a judgment call by management on what will/will not sell. There are chances that every business must make on a daily basis regarding what they can/cannot sell. This is the occupational hazard and the "roll of the dice." Again, the manufacturer is in control of how much they spend and how many they press and inventory.

BarryTone wrote:

I don't know how else to articulate this issue to get you to understand the problem in this matter, but suffice it to say that what you are suggesting is downright silly. I don't mean to be offensive here but your comments are a result of some very shallow thinking. It never ceases to amaze me as to how certain people can so vociferously attempt to defend their rights in a $20.00 CD, yet at the same time be so insensitive to the rights of others that have invested thousands in the production of that CD.

Apparently, this shallow thinking as you call it, has not yet been explained away by you or the labels. It never ceases to amaze me as well how someone like a label has invested thousands of dollars in production of a $20 cd and not positively secured licensing, grant the use of a backup copy and then sue their own customers for doing what they've given permission to do. And now, charge their same customers to verify that they paid them once by having them pay twice? Can you think of another "industry" that does that? Are you suggesting that because I've only spent $20.00 on a cd and they've spent thousands to produce it that somehow I have LESS rights? I didn't realize that rights have a price in America... comrade.

BarryTone wrote:

Judging by previous comments that you've made, I can't help but wonder how you would react if you had invested anywhere between 8 and $15,000 in music costs alone for a 10 song CD, only to be told that after having paid an additional $25 to $30,000 in royalties that you can no longer sell YOUR sound recordings without securing an addition license.

It's absolutely ludicrous to believe that I would enter into a license agreement that would be so open-ended. No matter how "complicated" you want to make licensing sound, it is quite possible to license YOUR tracks for sale, the amount that you've licensed for the term that you've licensed it. You've stated it before and you've alluded to what to do with "outdated inventory." You can't have it both ways and if a manufacturer agreed to something so open ended, then who's really the shallow thinkers here?

BarryTone wrote:

Additionally, you still have provided no explaination as to how you relate this matter to that of a company's picking better songs. Am I missing something here? I'm really having difficulty finding the logic in your arguments. What on earth does the amount of profit or loss have to do with any of this? Are you suggesting that if a company made millions that they can't be victims? Also, have you ever heard of the term "copyright trolls"?

You are missing something. You had mentioned "expiring licenses" and specifically a 10-track disc where 1 track expires effectively killing the entire disc. I assert that no disc expires without the label's knowledge and if they don't want to carry an inventory (at a distributor branch) then they'd best pick songs they know will sell the entire inventory in three years. That's all. One or two good tracks and 13 "Country Hits Of The 50's" probably isn't going to move very fast and KJ's have been stuffed with "filler trash" for years and no longer have to put up with it.

The problem I have with sympathizing with millionaire-manufacturers is that plenty of their millions were made with non-licensed material in my opinion. Non-licensed tracks they got away with for years, marking those same tracks as "Used by Permission" when in fact they never even requested licensing from the copyright owners. And yes, I've heard of "copyright trolls" and have you heard of "trademark extortionists?" They're probably drinkin' buddies or worse: they are both wrapped up in one like Jekyl and Hyde.

BarryTone wrote:

Judgments and injunctions prove nothing of the sort. They more often than not prove who had the better lawyers than anything that would resemble fairness. If you ran a commercial operation and waited to release your titles only after you had everthing "nailed down on paper with specified range and scope." The only thing that you would have accomplished is to put your employer out of business.

So what you are saying is that in order for these manufacturers to legally compete in this business, they were forced to operate illegally? Really? Wow, that's like saying; "We're going in the car parts business, but in order to do that, we have to steal enough parts to sell to get the money to make our own or we'd be out of business."

And you say my thinking is shallow?

BarryTone wrote:

P.S. Sorry for the poor formatting. I am a "newbie" so please bear with me until I have this all figured out.

No problem... so what is your affiliation with manufacturers?

_________________
Dave's not here.

Where do I begin? Okay, I'll start with this copying to HD is the same as a CD-R business. I didn't want to get too deep into this topic because I don't think it is all that important in context with the other issues. Having said that, if you reread my comments you will notice that I made a distinction between personal use and commercial use. I never made any distinctions between plastic or hard drive. You did that all by yourself. You asked what I considered legal copying, and I replied that copying to a CD-R for personal use/archival copy is fine. This is nothing new and is covered under several legislative acts. However I stated that copying to a hard drive for commercial use is a gray area. That was the distinction that I made. Not as to whether or not an archival copy was made on a CD-R or a hard drive.

You should be aware that COMMERCIAL USE of an archival copy is not any less of a gray area than is the use of a hard drive. Some companies do have policies that allow the use of an archival copy in situations where the original disc has been damaged, but do not give permission to use an archival copy in lieu of a perfectly good original.

There is no problem in deciding "just how much product to SELL to the distributor." This is all just so simple and not as complicated as I make it out to be . . . Really? And you're basing your comments on your experience in these matters? Do you have even the slightest clue as to what the variables are? If you have no hands-on experience in any of this, then from what authority do you speak? Not only is this process as complicated as I make it out to be, it is far more complicated than that.

Have you ever been in a position where you've had to decide to pull a music production three quarters of the way through its completion due to an approval that didn't come thru as anticipated, because your licensing department just discovered another publisher who doesn't want the song on karaoke? Are you even aware of the fact that routinely licenses may not be issued until sometimes three years after the release of the song or do you think that all licenses are complete and issued on demand? Oh that's right, you would just wait until you had a signed and completed license before you released the song.

Have you ever been in a position to have to deal with a "favored nations" clause 3 years after the song was released. Perhaps you were the one responsible for licensing a product from a major publisher's approval sheet only to discover two years down the road that there was another publisher that had a percentage of that composition of which you were unaware and in which the major publisher did not advise you existed? I'm sure you're just a whiz at researching and securing licenses for songs within a song. You know those tricky little ditties that contain samples from other songs, etc. You don't know the half of it. I could cite a list of scenarios that would make your head spin, but you would still probably refuse to recognize them because it doesn't conveniently fit into your simplistic licensing idealogy. However if you know something that I don't then by all means please enlighten me.

Oh and then there was this gem: "A label should press as many units as they have licensed". If you knew anything at all about music licensing you would know that a license is not for a set amount. There may be (and usually is) a unit advance, but one does not secure a license for "X" amound of units. This completely defies rationality. Publishers are in the business of generating royalties. Insisting on some sort of limit to the amounts sold would only be counter productive.

I could go on and debunk each of your points but I realize there would be little point in doing so, because you obviously have some sort of a vendetta against the karaoke labels, and no amount of reasoning will satisfy you. Some of the reasons that you've cited I might even agree with. I don't think the labels should be making legitimate customers have to pay for an audit to "verify" that their content is legal. This amounts to little more than making the innocent pay for the guilty. It is insulting to say the least. Where we part company however is when you make the charge that these labels produce unlicensed products without any evidence other than a judgment and a settlement. Anyone that has an intimate understanding of how the system wiorks and who the players are knows that most of these summary judgments aren't worth the paper they are written on.

This is not to say that you are necessarily wrong. These companies could be taking short cuts in many instances. I sincerely doubt however that they are the gross infringers that you have portrayed them as. However, because none of these cases in question have been brought to trial no one knows for sure what the facts are, and I don't think that accusations made on that basis should go unchallenged.

I do want to close by addressing your following comment: "Are you suggesting that because I've only spent $20.00 on a cd and they've spent thousands to produce it that somehow I have LESS rights? I didn't realize that rights have a price in America... comrade."

First off lets make the distinction between "copyrights" and "natural rights". "Natural rights" are rights that come from our humanity. These are the rights that the constitution states that our government shall make no laws to abridge. Copyrights on the other hand, are really not rights at all, but for the sake of discussion, these are rights granted by the government and they do come at a price, and don't look now but the owners of copyrights do have more rights in that disc that they sell you for $20 than you do. They have exclusive rights to sell distribute or do whatever they choose with their property. You on the other hand have only acquired the right to use that property.

Thank you BarryTone.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Chip, you know that I normally agree with virtually everything you post, but here I have to veer off.

Technically, back-up copies, whether a video, software, audio, whatever- are supposed to be made to the same media as that on which they were produced. Tape to Tape, Disc to disc, etc... I have no idea if anyone ever enforces this, but there ya go....

My source for this info is my brother, who owns an international software company specializing in government sales. been through a couple of court cases since the 70s. I'm gonna take his word for it.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

BarryTone wrote:

Where do I begin? Okay, I'll start with this copying to HD is the same as a CD-R business. I didn't want to get too deep into this topic because I don't think it is all that important in context with the other issues. Having said that, if you reread my comments you will notice that I made a distinction between personal use and commercial use. I never made any distinctions between plastic or hard drive. You did that all by yourself. You asked what I considered legal copying, and I replied that copying to a CD-R for personal use/archival copy is fine. This is nothing new and is covered under several legislative acts. However I stated that copying to a hard drive for commercial use is a gray area. That was the distinction that I made. Not as to whether or not an archival copy was made on a CD-R or a hard drive.

Then I stand corrected. YOUR opinion is what you stated, got it.

BarryTone wrote:

You should be aware that COMMERCIAL USE of an archival copy is not any less of a gray area than is the use of a hard drive. Some companies do have policies that allow the use of an archival copy in situations where the original disc has been damaged, but do not give permission to use an archival copy in lieu of a perfectly good original.

This is where I disagree and this industry has gone 'round and 'round on this issue alone. Please point out in the following statement where there is a limitation that the copy is not a "working copy" and the original -with no mention of damage at all- becomes the "archive copy:"

Permission for storing the original as the archive copy primarily to protect an investment, and using the copy in COMMERCIAL USE has been granted - and it was granted several times.

You need to make a decision on whether these suppliers sell pieces of plastic (discs) or the intellectual property (songs) contained on them because you can't have it both ways. These vendors now sell the intellectual property sans plastic via download, sd disk and now hard drive and they sell them "by the song." Not by a 15 song collection on a plastic disc.

BarryTone wrote:

There is no problem in deciding "just how much product to SELL to the distributor." This is all just so simple and not as complicated as I make it out to be . . . Really? And you're basing your comments on your experience in these matters? Do you have even the slightest clue as to what the variables are? If you have no hands-on experience in any of this, then from what authority do you speak? Not only is this process as complicated as I make it out to be, it is far more complicated than that.

Yes, really. Contrary to your belief, yes I do and I disagree that it is as complicated as you make it out to be.... but that's just my opinion, feel free to discount it as you like.

BarryTone wrote:

Have you ever been in a position where you've had to decide to pull a music production three quarters of the way through its completion due to an approval that didn't come thru as anticipated, because your licensing department just discovered another publisher who doesn't want the song on karaoke? Are you even aware of the fact that routinely licenses may not be issued until sometimes three years after the release of the song or do you think that all licenses are complete and issued on demand? Oh that's right, you would just wait until you had a signed and completed license before you released the song.

Let's see if I understand you correctly;
Your scenario#1 is that there is a manufacturer who has NOT completed licensing AND has been paying a staff of musicians to record a song, and now three-quarters of the way through, the licensing department puts the brakes on it because an "anticipated" approval didn't come through? So exactly who's fault would that be? It's going to be either the licensing department who didn't secure complete licensing, or management that approved the initiation of work and now must eat the expense they've authorized. So far, it sounds like there have been some pretty shallow thinkers on staff at the manufacturer would you think?

Your scenario#2 is asking if I'm aware that some licenses aren't issued until 3 years later. And so because of this, you must be saying that in order to get these songs to the market while they're "hot," it's perfectly reasonable and customary for a manufacturer to simply steal this intellectual property and illegally produce, package, distribute and sell (marked "Used by permission") what is now an illegal product that the manufacturer will profit on? There's another name for this activity that escapes me..... starts with a "p" though..... I'll think of it...

That kind of logic is really simple: "Let's just sell it and if they come around asking for licensing money later, we'll pay them then. In the meantime we'll just sweep all this licensing cash we're saving for them in the corner." Looks like a perfect justification for COMMERCIALLY producing and selling unlicensed (stolen) material in my opinion.

BarryTone wrote:

Have you ever been in a position to have to deal with a "favored nations" clause 3 years after the song was released. Perhaps you were the one responsible for licensing a product from a major publisher's approval sheet only to discover two years down the road that there was another publisher that had a percentage of that composition of which you were unaware and in which the major publisher did not advise you existed? I'm sure you're just a whiz at researching and securing licenses for songs within a song. You know those tricky little ditties that contain samples from other songs, etc. You don't know the half of it. I could cite a list of scenarios that would make your head spin, but you would still probably refuse to recognize them because it doesn't conveniently fit into your simplistic licensing idealogy. However if you know something that I don't then by all means please enlighten me.

Scenario #1: A "favored nations clause" works in the favor of the licensee, not the licensor. So what's your point?
Scenario #2: Can your licensing department add up to 100? If you licensing department hasn't accounted for all the percentages of ownership (and don't think that the publisher getting paid doesn't know what percentage they own and who owns the rest) then I guess we're back to your fall-back plan: to hell with the license and make it anyway right?
Scenario #3: Those nasty and tricky little "ditties" of song samples within songs... hasn't seemed to be a problem for a single manufacturer so far. If you have a link to a suit that specifies an infringement on a sample I'd certainly be interested. But I doubt even you would be able to locate a single one. I'd love to see if there was any additional licensing for "No Tengo Dinero" by Los Umbrellos for the underlying "Never On A Sunday" melody...

No matter how "simplistic" you believe my licensing ideaology to be, the common denominator here is that you are simply using each scenario above as an additional justification for manufacturers to produce music illegally. And usually in the interest of expediency to put the song(s) on the market. This is (in my opinion) the entire reason that Daiichi Kosho (DKKaraoke) left the United States. Contrary to popular belief, they did not issue a disc that wasn't completely licensed before it left the factory. Was it the "first" to get product out? Nope. It was leapfrogged by the U.S. manufacturers that ignored licensing (or complete licensing) and just dumped the material on the market ahead of them. So it always appeared as though they were slow or that they were "out marketed" by the savvy Americans. Finally, they gave up, packed their bags and went back to Japan. According to the late John Kornblum (marketing director) DK left because they could not compete if the Americans wouldn't abide by their own laws. Why would any KJ purchase a DK disc for $39.95 of Billy Joel songs if entire discs of his songs were on the street 4 months earlier? They weren't out marketed at all, they were cheated by thieves and .... the "p-word."


Let me rephrase my statement then: "A label should press as many units as they intend to pay for licensing." Does that make more sense? If you're a manufacturer and based on your years of experience of course, you'll have an informed decision by the second year of a three year license how many more units can be reasonably be sold before sales taper off to nothing. i.e. if you've pressed 3,000 but you expect probably another 1,000 will be sold in the remaining year, then simply press 1,000 and you'll know in advance how much you will be paying for licensing. Got 200 left over? Sell 'em to your distributorship. This is not rocket science nor is there going be a giant rush in the last month for a jillion discs.


Well I would certainly disagree that I have any sort of vendetta, but as you say, no amount of reasoning will satisfy you either. It's refreshing that you don't think labels should charge customers to prove their innocence, but I'd go a step further and disagree that they should have any right to demand anything of their customers other than being satisfied with their product. Their tactics have plenty to be desired.


Interesting that you would characterize this as an unfounded charge citing court judgments and settlements as invalid. More interesting is that your explanations above attempt to justify manufacturers producing illegal product (that "p-word" comes to mind) by blaming the publishers. Are the manufacturers pointing a finger at the publishers all the while saying; "They MADE us do it!" Complex or not, there's no excuse for producing anything illegal, period. Shifting the responsibility for these actions back onto the publishers is merely a deflection.


"Short cuts?" So they are "little infringers?" Only a "teensie bit illegal" should get a hall pass by all means then. Interesting how that should work for the multi-million dollar manufacturers while they happily sue the $150/night KJ's. If an accusation based on a federal court decision and/or a consent settlement including any permanent injunctions isn't substantial or definitive enough and should be challenged, then there's nothing that will ever be reasonable enough or proof enough for you.


Yep. You are correct that they(the publishers) have the exclusive rights to sell, distribute or do whatever they wish including license for a little, license for a lot, license today or in 3 years. It does not give the manufacturers the rights to avoid this process just because they want to make money in their COMMERCIAL SALES of the unlicensed material. In purchasing this material, I have acquired the right to USE that (intellectual) property and there's nothing that ties it to the piece of plastic or other media it was delivered on.

Come on Chip, no guesses?

I have plenty.... but I'll simply reserve them. I understand the whole "moniker thang" and using cool names and catchy phrases as your I.D. on a forum. I don't necessarily subscribe to it so I always use my name instead.

It becomes a little more sinister however when it is used to hide an affiliation or identity because I don't understand how that can be an advantage for anyone, except the poster. And it was perfectly demonstrated on this forum earlier this year when a member admitted that they specifically lied about their I.D. to "gather information" on other members (or simply bait them.)

Yikes this is getting very weary, but I’ll make one final attempt at correcting your misguided rhetoric. Before I do so however, I think I should point out that everything that I say in this forum is not based on the way I think copyright laws SHOULD be, but rather on the way copyright law exists. There is a huge difference between the two and you might be very surprised at what my views are on IP.

With that being said (and again I apologize for not taking the time to figure out how to post my responses the way you do which I know makes them a bit difficult to follow), I think it is only fair to point out that while everyone is entitled to their opinion, not all opinions are equal. You may find that comment as distasteful as the “shallow thinking” comment, but nevertheless if you’re honest with yourself you should agree that the opinion of someone employed in a certain occupation carries much more credence than someone who has never been employed in that industry.

I really don’t understand how someone can take such a dogmatic and rigid position when they haven’t the foggiest idea as to how the licensing process works. I’ll provide you with the following examples based on your own comments: Your “Scenario #1 and Scenario #2:” Here again this shows your total ignorance as to how the licensing process works so I’ll complete the scenario as it happens in the real world and not the hypothetical fantasy world that you live in with the hope that this might educate you enough so that just maybe in the future you might not repeat these kinds of uninformed statements.

First you need to understand the distinction between current music which drives the market, and music that has already been established in the market for at least several months. These are two entirely different animals. Secondly, most songs today have at least some ownership by one of the four major publishers, none of whom issue licenses and/or approvals in the same manner. Now let's complete the scenario. Major publisher #4 does not and will not deal with requests for licensing individual tracks except in special cases. Incidentally this holds true for the other three major publishers. Karaoke only represents 5% of their market, but as one licensor once told me, 95% of their aggravation.

Anyway sticking with publisher #4, who emails a spreadsheet every month listing the songs that are available for release on karaoke (other major publishers handle it similarly but somewhat differently). Not only does this spreadsheet make no mention of their percentage of ownership, it makes no mention if there are any other rights holders in that composition, leaving it incumbent upon the licensee to find all the other publishers that is if they even exist. Question: How do you prove a negative? Answer: You don’t! Major publisher #4 requires the licensee to report to them at the end of the year as to what songs were used on their list and how many units sold. Then when they get around to it, they will issue a license AFTER the fact. This is a common practice. Are you starting to get the picture?

Now let’s look at the plight of the karaoke record label. The record label chooses the song it wants to release. First it researches the song on the PRO websites (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) and the liner notes on the CD of the original artist in the process of locating the publisher(s). The only way possible to identify the publisher(s) on a new release is through this process. At this point even if the composition was registered with the copyright office before the song was released (which is rare), it still takes several months for that song to appear on the copyright.gov website so this is not an option. The licensing department then looks at the song writer as certain song writers do no allow their works to be used for karaoke. Once it has passed that filtering process it then proceeds to get an APPROVAL from the publishers listed on the PRO websites. Some companies do this in-house, other companies use a licensing agent, while other companies use a combination of both, but make no mistake, the ALL do it.


So record label seeks APPROVAL from major publisher #4 by referring to their monthly list of songs approved for karaoke. So far so good, now the record label puts the work into production anticipating that it will receive the remaining approvals necessary to complete the licensing while it continues to contact the other KNOWN publishers some of whom could be one of the other three major publishers or several other publishing companies. Now the record label gets approval from the KNOWN remaining publishers (which can exceed 10 or more on a single composition) and on to the next song. The preceding is not the exception, but rather the norm.

Now legally speaking, unless there is an agreement amongst the individual rights holders of the musical composition stating otherwise, any one of the rights holders can issue a license to use their work. Stated differently, one rights holder cannot prevent another rights holder of the same work from issuing a license unless previously agreed to or if one of the rights holders is designated as the “administrator” of the work which is extremely rare.

Now here is just one of the problems that the record label will face. At the end of the year major publisher #4 issues a license for the work, which has a disclaimer in the document. A disclaimer that states, that the license is only valid IF all other publishers have issued a license or approval for the same work. Is this disclaimer enforceable or legal? Probably not, but does the record label really want to go through the expense of litigating this issue. Again probably not, be as it may this is standard practice and is just the way things are done.

At this point it should be fairly obvious that the way a license is issued in the real world is nowhere near the way in which you envision it. It should also need no explanation as to the many different types of exposures to an infringement, even when the label THINKS it has all of its bases covered.

The label has two options, either wait for a signed license from all of the rights holders which would in effect put them out of business, or use what is commonly referred to in all businesses “best practice”. All companies that release current music opt for the latter.

Your “Scenario #3: I’m not even going to bother answering that one. If I had a link readily available I would send it to you, but in the overall scheme of things it isn’t worth the effort. I suggest that if you really are that interested in this that you research it for yourself. You’ll find that there are numerous cases involving this scenario.

Regarding your "A label should press as many units as they intend to pay for licensing." remark. Well that was just brilliant! I’ll be sure to pass this along to the labels as I’m sure that they are so stupid to not have thought of that themselves. Before I do that however, maybe you can lend more of your eye opening insight as to how these labels can sell their content into the tenth year, oh yes I forgot you would have them press a 10 or 20 year supply and then place them into commerce. Incredibly smart even if there is obviously no concept of inventory turn rates. But by all means don’t stop there! Please tell us how this would work for companies with business to consumer models, which in case you haven’t noticed is the current trend by which most labels are transitioning toward.

Finally, you continually try to label me as someone whose comments are merely justifications for the questionable licensing practices of the labels when ironically if anyone is attempting to justify acts of infringement it seems to be you. In any event I can assure you that my intention has never been to defend the licensing practices of any karaoke label. To some I may come across as an apologist for the record labels but I can only tell you that it if that’s the case they have misunderstood my positions. What I have been trying to get across (apparently unsuccessfully) is that the real world of IP is very different than what is being portrayed. The legal system is every bit as corrupt as the political system in which we live. The truth here is that “the devil is in the detail” as the saying goes, and no one knows what those details are. I have read most of these cases many times and I have many concerns over the actual evidence in some of these cases. If it is that unclear to me then I see no reason as to how it can possibly be so clear to you.

Unfortunately we all have to rely on this system however corrupt it may be, but to build a case against the labels (which mostly seem to be SC and CB) in this forum based on suits and summary judgments is not taking into consideration the whole picture. Also whether or not they are guilty of “willful infringement” they had to pay dearly to settle their cases. In fact far more than the value of the content that they allegedly infringed on. So in the end in addition to whatever payments they may have already received, the writers and publishers got paid far more than they would have received otherwise. That in and of itself should be reason enough for everyone to accept the fact that they have paid for the infringements whether they infringed or not. They’ve done their time so to speak so there is little use of belaboring this point in any meaningful discussion. The only reason to do otherwise would be in a search for justification to infringe on their content.

I would defend your position with regard to audits and other acts of having to prove your innocence (as opposed to having reasonable cause) against the record labels, just as vigorously. Oh and by the way, "Favored Nations" benefits the publisher and not the label as you've suggested.

I have my reasons for remaining anonymous. Mostly because there will be times when I will be just as harsh on the labels. Exposing my identity would not afford me that opportunity as I am not one to bite the hand that feeds me.

I've bought from them also and they are STELLAR. I just checked my receipt
from them and the address is the same it's their corporate office.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Just as stellar as Chip's non-answers. Seems to me Chip wants everyone's affiliations and/or bona fides but not willing to give his. He also loves stiiring the pot but when someone else does it, he and his wife takes offence.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

BarryTone wrote:

Yikes this is getting very weary, but I’ll make one final attempt at correcting your misguided rhetoric. Before I do so however, I think I should point out that everything that I say in this forum is not based on the way I think copyright laws SHOULD be, but rather on the way copyright law exists. There is a huge difference between the two and you might be very surprised at what my views are on IP.

I don't think I would be as surprised as you'd think, you've always seemed to be fairly level-headed on the subject.


I would only agree with that to a point. Come to Detroit (bring your own bulletproof vest) and you'll find a plethora of management in the automobile business who's opinions regarding building cars is as dumb as a box of rocks, yet they act indignant and confused whenever Japan kicks their rear end all over the place.

BarryTone wrote:

I really don’t understand how someone can take such a dogmatic and rigid position when they haven’t the foggiest idea as to how the licensing process works. I’ll provide you with the following examples based on your own comments: Your “Scenario #1 and Scenario #2:” Here again this shows your total ignorance as to how the licensing process works so I’ll complete the scenario as it happens in the real world and not the hypothetical fantasy world that you live in with the hope that this might educate you enough so that just maybe in the future you might not repeat these kinds of uninformed statements.

I'm certainly open-minded enough to listen however, I have an idea that more justifications for incomplete licensing is on the forefront....


I understand this and I've never suggested that it's an "easy process" by any means, it's simply one of the occupational hazards of being in the business they are. Complicating this is the karaoke manufacturer desire to be within the time zone of "current music" and not "established music" because of it's innate "sale-ability." It's a rock and hard place to be on the leading edge of music - but that's still the karaoke manufacturer's choice to do so.

BarryTone wrote:

Now let's complete the scenario. Major publisher #4 does not and will not deal with requests for licensing individual tracks except in special cases. Incidentally this holds true for the other three major publishers. Karaoke only represents 5% of their market, but as one licensor once told me, 95% of their aggravation.

And the aggravation is because????....

BarryTone wrote:

Anyway sticking with publisher #4, who emails a spreadsheet every month listing the songs that are available for release on karaoke (other major publishers handle it similarly but somewhat differently). Not only does this spreadsheet make no mention of their percentage of ownership, it makes no mention if there are any other rights holders in that composition, leaving it incumbent upon the licensee to find all the other publishers that is if they even exist. Question: How do you prove a negative? Answer: You don’t! Major publisher #4 requires the licensee to report to them at the end of the year as to what songs were used on their list and how many units sold. Then when they get around to it, they will issue a license AFTER the fact. This is a common practice. Are you starting to get the picture?

Sure, your "common practice" sucks and leaves you open to nothing but legal action unless you have an agreement (in writing) to indemnify you from legal action from these publishers for "following their rules." (good luck getting that.... I know)

BarryTone wrote:

Now let’s look at the plight of the karaoke record label. The record label chooses the song it wants to release. First it researches the song on the PRO websites (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) and the liner notes on the CD of the original artist in the process of locating the publisher(s). The only way possible to identify the publisher(s) on a new release is through this process. At this point even if the composition was registered with the copyright office before the song was released (which is rare), it still takes several months for that song to appear on the copyright.gov website so this is not an option. The licensing department then looks at the song writer as certain song writers do no allow their works to be used for karaoke. Once it has passed that filtering process it then proceeds to get an APPROVAL from the publishers listed on the PRO websites. Some companies do this in-house, other companies use a licensing agent, while other companies use a combination of both, but make no mistake, they ALL do it.

Okay, and as part of my business, I have (had?) to carry my own equipment in the club in the winter... sucks too, but the point is that it's simply part of the job. I appreciate your explanation.

BarryTone wrote:

So record label seeks APPROVAL from major publisher #4 by referring to their monthly list of songs approved for karaoke. So far so good, now the record label puts the work into production anticipating that it will receive the remaining approvals necessary to complete the licensing while it continues to contact the other KNOWN publishers some of whom could be one of the other three major publishers or several other publishing companies. Now the record label gets approval from the KNOWN remaining publishers (which can exceed 10 or more on a single composition) and on to the next song. The preceding is not the exception, but rather the norm.

Operative word here is "anticipating" because of their desire to stay within the "current music window" and I understand the difference in sales and the karaoke label at this point is fully aware of the risks involved (they've been down this road before right?) so it is incumbent on them to accept these risks as the cost of doing business.

BarryTone wrote:

Now legally speaking, unless there is an agreement amongst the individual rights holders of the musical composition stating otherwise, any one of the rights holders can issue a license to use their work. Stated differently, one rights holder cannot prevent another rights holder of the same work from issuing a license unless previously agreed to or if one of the rights holders is designated as the “administrator” of the work which is extremely rare.

Now here is just one of the problems that the record label will face. At the end of the year major publisher #4 issues a license for the work, which has a disclaimer in the document. A disclaimer that states, that the license is only valid IF all other publishers have issued a license or approval for the same work. Is this disclaimer enforceable or legal? Probably not, but does the record label really want to go through the expense of litigating this issue. Again probably not, be as it may this is standard practice and is just the way things are done.

I get it. And it strengthens the case for licensing out of Borneo doesn't it?

BarryTone wrote:

At this point it should be fairly obvious that the way a license is issued in the real world is nowhere near the way in which you envision it. It should also need no explanation as to the many different types of exposures to an infringement, even when the label THINKS it has all of its bases covered.

The label has two options, either wait for a signed license from all of the rights holders which would in effect put them out of business, or use what is commonly referred to in all businesses “best practice”. All companies that release current music opt for the latter.

Best practice is fraught with plenty of pitfalls and again, it's not something that any karaoke label enters into blindly - so I find it hard to sympathize with it.

BarryTone wrote:

Your “Scenario #3: I’m not even going to bother answering that one. If I had a link readily available I would send it to you, but in the overall scheme of things it isn’t worth the effort. I suggest that if you really are that interested in this that you research it for yourself. You’ll find that there are numerous cases involving this scenario.

You're right, it isn't worth the effort.

BarryTone wrote:

Regarding your "A label should press as many units as they intend to pay for licensing." remark. Well that was just brilliant! I’ll be sure to pass this along to the labels as I’m sure that they are so stupid to not have thought of that themselves. Before I do that however, maybe you can lend more of your eye opening insight as to how these labels can sell their content into the tenth year, oh yes I forgot you would have them press a 10 or 20 year supply and then place them into commerce. Incredibly smart even if there is obviously no concept of inventory turn rates. But by all means don’t stop there! Please tell us how this would work for companies with business to consumer models, which in case you haven’t noticed is the current trend by which most labels are transitioning toward.

Which way do you want it? Do you want it as fast sales within the "current music window" or do you want to continue to sell the same songs after 10 years? Both ways is kind of tough unless you're willing to absorb the cost of inventory. Your own description puts a three year time limit on these tracks anyway so the ONLY way you can still sell them after 10 years is to store and inventory. After all, you're paying your licensing on a per-copy basis right? So the publisher is still due their fee even on the song you sell 10 years later.

BarryTone wrote:

Finally, you continually try to label me as someone whose comments are merely justifications for the questionable licensing practices of the labels when ironically if anyone is attempting to justify acts of infringement it seems to be you. In any event I can assure you that my intention has never been to defend the licensing practices of any karaoke label. To some I may come across as an apologist for the record labels but I can only tell you that it if that’s the case they have misunderstood my positions. What I have been trying to get across (apparently unsuccessfully) is that the real world of IP is very different than what is being portrayed. The legal system is every bit as corrupt as the political system in which we live. The truth here is that “the devil is in the detail” as the saying goes, and no one knows what those details are. I have read most of these cases many times and I have many concerns over the actual evidence in some of these cases. If it is that unclear to me then I see no reason as to how it can possibly be so clear to you.

I don't see where I've justified any infringement. I'm fully aware of the failings of the legal system as well as how that is being exploited by labels against customers.

BarryTone wrote:

Unfortunately we all have to rely on this system however corrupt it may be, but to build a case against the labels (which mostly seem to be SC and CB) in this forum based on suits and summary judgments is not taking into consideration the whole picture. Also whether or not they are guilty of “willful infringement” they had to pay dearly to settle their cases. In fact far more than the value of the content that they allegedly infringed on. So in the end in addition to whatever payments they may have already received, the writers and publishers got paid far more than they would have received otherwise. That in and of itself should be reason enough for everyone to accept the fact that they have paid for the infringements whether they infringed or not. They’ve done their time so to speak so there is little use of belaboring this point in any meaningful discussion. The only reason to do otherwise would be in a search for justification to infringe on their content.

I would defend your position with regard to audits and other acts of having to prove your innocence (as opposed to having reasonable cause) against the record labels, just as vigorously. Oh and by the way, "Favored Nations" benefits the publisher and not the label as you've suggested.

It is my opinion that "whether or not" leans more toward "whether" than "not" and they've made millions on it. There have been and there are songs that have never been licensed and sold. While these labels would like to charge their customers to prove their innocence, at the same time they are unwilling to prove their licensing... and they've already been paid once.
And by the way:

I know nothing of the law..


I've not even been to jail..

And this post is not a prime example of "pot-stirring?"

Play nice guys..

Barrytone: I think what has some on here so incensed is that some of the manufacturers are going after pirates, but in so doing have caught innocent people in the net on several occasions. One manufacturer posted on here quite some time ago and was quite vehement in his approach when called out on his investigative methods. He also appeared to be quite vindictive to some of those innocent parties when they posted on here, upset at what was being done to them, threatening them with having to pay more if they continued to post (I'm paraphrasing here). Those posters are long gone now. Those who did post on here but changed their opinions to support that manufacturer were not bothered in this way. He also appeared to be very uncaring about those who were innocent, caught in his net, basically denying that such a thing happened and that they were ALL guilty. Time has proven quite differently and I believe it will continue to do so. Several on here took what he posted and they way he posted to be quite hypocritical and now we have the above scenario of the pot calling the kettle black.
I personally disagree with the methods of investigation, or lack thereof.
It appears to me that little to no real investigative work has been done. Instead, what appears to happen is that someone (maybe not even a licensed investigator) walks into a venue, sees a computer, sees karaoke on the screen and calls it a day, without further inquiry. One case I know of is still ongoing and even though the accused has all the discs (I've seen a video he produced showing walls and walls of all his discs), because he did not "co-operate" with that manufacturer and instead asserted his rights and refused to have his privacy invaded, he has been dragged though the mud by said manufacturer. The case itself has been delayed and underhanded things have happened, like the manu's lawyer telling the defendant not to file certain documents because it isn't necessary, when in fact they did need to be filed; holding a court ordered scheduling conference without informing the pro se defendants and then telling the judge that all parties were in agreement; neglecting to serve documents on the defendant; and the list goes on. In one case, the manu pretty much extorted someone into agreeing to buy the discs when they knew full well that at the time, the case against that defendant had already been dismissed. Despite this they didn't inform the defendant about the court decision and took his money anyway. Why did the defendant agree to settle? He was worried about the cost and figured it would be cheaper than hiring a lawyer. And he was right about that. It was a clear case of trademark extortion and it continues to this day, just a little more subtly, since apparently the backlash from the public and the bad press has made him rethink his methods, but only a little. The first copy of the settlement agreement is really what got many of us going here. People were being "forced" (read: extorted) to sign away many of their legal rights. It's underhanded things like this and the spiteful way he came across in posting here when questioned about such things that turned my opinion of him. And it all started with the way he went about "investigating", infringing on others' rights and it just snowballed from there, mainly due to his own efforts.
As for Stellar, I'm glad that they are not taking part in any of that and are taking the high road in realizing that some have unwittingly become pirates (having compassion, instead of venom for those who were duped into buying illegal HDs) and are not putting the onus on those of us who have been loyal customers.
As my father always said, "you attract far more flies with honey than you do with vinegar"!
BTW, Just a question on Stellar's "payment plan" for the CAP program. Not sure if you can get this information of not, But earlier, I saw someone on here mention that they only do a few shows a year, and it got me to thinking. What about the KJ that doesn't do very many shows or doesn't make a lot with his or her weekly gigs and can't make enough to make the 6 monthly payments of $533.33? Do you think Stellar would consider "easier" terms for people like them?
Also, is it like others here were suggesting, that once you pay, you can have ALL of the songs listed, no matter how you get them, even after you've paid - ie: go download them after paying?
Just curious on that one.

Good to know, and I hope you are. Glad see someone who might be able to see BOTH sides of the fence.