Karaoke Forums

No, no, no, no, no.

No.

I have never said that.

I would never say that, not even one time, and certainly not several times.

When a song is recorded, there are at least two copyrights that are implicated. First among them is the copyright in the musical work, sometimes referred to as the "underlying" musical work. We refer to that as the "composition" copyright because the copyright applies to the musical composition at issue. When you think of the composition copyright, you might think of sheet music.

The other copyright is the sound recording copyright. The sound recording is ordinarily a derivative work of the composition copyright, because it involves interpreting a pre-existing composition and embodying those ideas in a new way or medium (paper versus sound, in the classic example).

The songwriter (or publisher, after an assignment) owns the composition copyright.

The recording artist (be it Barry Manilow or Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp.) owns the copyright in the sound recording.

Until you understand these principles, all of this:



makes no sense.

BMI, SESAC, and ASCAP represent songwriters and publishers ONLY, and for a very important reason: There is NO* public performance right in sound recordings, so there is nothing for BMI, SESAC, or ASCAP to collect on behalf of the owner of a sound recording copyright.

* - There is a very narrow exception for public performance of sound recordings when it involves a digital transmission, but that isn't relevant here.

BMI, SESAC, and ASCAP do NOT represent "artists." They do not collect royalties for "artists." The fact that someone may have been a studio musician on a sound recording does NOT entitle that person to receive anything for public performance of the sound recording.

However, there IS a public performance right for the composition copyright. For that reason, BMI, SESAC, and ASCAP collect royalties for the public performance of the composition copyright. That is entirely appropriate, and because the owner of the composition copyright can, within reason, set conditions or charge different rates for different types of performances, charging a rate based on "karaoke" (versus "live music" or "recorded music") is fine.

The fact that they charge differentiated rates for karaoke does NOT mean that BMI, SESAC, and ASCAP collect on behalf of karaoke producers.

Now, if there is no public performance right in sound recordings, what are we talking about?

Well, you may recall that about 10-15 years ago, the music publishers decided that rather than thinking of karaoke recordings as sound recordings with a lyric display (thus charging for a mechanical license and a lyric reprint license), they could control karaoke more carefully by thinking of karaoke tracks as audiovisual works--"movies," so to speak. By doing so, they could extract an additional royalty (for "synchronization," which is a royalty they have traditionally gotten from movie producers for using popular music in movies) and have fine control over which artists' songs got recorded. They got a court to agree with them.

The consequence of that shift is that we are no longer talking about "sound recording" copyright only. Karaoke tracks are now considered audiovisual works--and audiovisual works DO have a public performance right. More importantly, the Copyright Act vests initial ownership of copyright in the author, the person or entity that first fixed the work in a tangible medium of expression. That means that the karaoke producer owns the copyright in the audiovisual work. That means the whole work, including the lyric sweeps.



Nope. SC owns its own tracks (to the extent those rights have not been assigned to Stingray, who owns those).



As I said above, I have never made a claim that SC owns music composition copyrights, period. SC or its assignee owns the copyright in its sound recordings and in the audiovisual works it created (which include the lyric sweeps).

BMI, SESAC, and ASCAP can only provide licensing for those songwriters and publishers whom they represent. They DO NOT represent SC or any other karaoke producer, so no licensing they provide could possibly cover rights owned by SC or any other karaoke producer.

Well I can tell you that I never even considered buying a drive, because I didn't know about them. I like the way I am doing it. I got a few core sets, and the rest I am downloading as I need. Works for me, and my customers. No need to steal, and no need to buy SC. As I have said before, I will gladly buy from SC IF they open up a download sight. If they don't, myself, and I think many modern KJs won't buy from them, and they are going to fade into obscurity. While older singers may ask for SC songs, younger one don't care. Quality-wise, much of what is coming out of the UK is BETTER than SC. The Country certainly. SBI makes EXCELLENT country. Zoom makes really good pop, and the rock they have dabbled in is REALLY good. Kurt doesn't seem to realize, or maybe he just doesn't care, that his company is slowly fading away, right before his eyes. He's missing the train. Within five years, SC will no longer be a relevant company, if they don't grow with the times.

And it doesn't matter what Jim says. Jim can crow about how relevant SC is, because outta sight is outta mind, and that is EXACTLY what is going on. Little by little.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Nope. SC owns its own tracks (to the extent those rights have not been assigned to Stingray, who owns those).



As I said above, I have never made a claim that SC owns music composition copyrights, period. SC or its assignee owns the copyright in its sound recordings and in the audiovisual works it created (which include the lyric sweeps).

BMI, SESAC, and ASCAP can only provide licensing for those songwriters and publishers whom they represent. They DO NOT represent SC or any other karaoke producer, so no licensing they provide could possibly cover rights owned by SC or any other karaoke producer.[/quote]

While I deleted a large portion of your post for the purposes of this quote, I do not disregard it and thank you for the information.

That being said, in regards to that which I DID quote:

Cool read, but the question remains unanswered. If you would be kind enough to provide a simple yes or no...

Is SC or any other producer legally authorized to license/ grant permission for the tracks they produce and distribute to be used as a basis for a U.S. based show? Yes or No?

If they can't, (and the publishers/owners haven't), then my original statement would be correct, and we all exist on the sufferance/apathy of the owners.

Is SC or any other producer legally authorized to grant permission or license the media shift of the tracks that they produce and distribute? Yes or No?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

No. The producer's authorization may be necessary, but it is not sufficient.



The problem when your assumption is that the publishers routinely do grant that permission, through their representatives BMI, SESAC, and ASCAP, on a blanket basis. So you don't "exist on the sufferance/apathy" of anyone in any real way. The publishers want to give that permission because it means they get paid for your use of their materials, and the publishers have made it clear that you are not responsible for getting that permission--only for making sure that your venues do.



As long as you mean "sufficient permission," the answer is no. As we have made clear from time immemorial, our position is that producers' permission is necessary for media-shifting but may not be sufficient.

I assume you understand what is meant by "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions. To have a legal performance, you must account for each bundle of rights that apply to what you are doing. Those bundles may be held by different parties. For certain activities, you may account for a bundle of rights by getting permission from the holder (a license), or there may be an exception in the law that means you don't need permission (such as fair use), or you may be able to select from several options for permission (such as when there are joint authors--a term that has specific meaning in the Copyright Act; permission from one is generally permission from all). Only when you have accounted for all applicable rights do you have "sufficient" permission.

Joe, karaoke producers make derivatives of original music and they own the derivative but they have to pay and/or get permission from the copyright holder, etc to produce and sell it. Here's another way to look at a manufacturers' rights. All the great masters works (Bach, Beethoven, etc) and other music is in what is known the Public Domain, which means anyone can use it, record it, play it, etc, without having to pay rights or royalties. However, if the London Symphony, Boston Pops or whoever make a recording then they own the copyright of that recording because it is a derivative. If you want to use their recording in a movie or whatever, then you have to pay them a royalty.

Jim, if I'm wrong please let me know.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

To simplify:

While I understand Jim's viewpoint in regard to karaoke producers' permissions being "neccesary" ( which is what his viewpoint would have to be in regard to his client (s) ), even he states that they are insufficient- Making BOTH answers a NO. This means that hosts are still vulnerable to suits from the publisher owners, from which the producers' "permissions" offer no protection whatsoever.

Which is what I have been stating all along.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

The producers' permissions offer protection from the producers. Publishers' permissions offer protection from publishers. That is all we have ever claimed. I'm not sure how you can consider that "no protection whatsoever," as though it didn't matter. If the PRO fees are paid, you have nothing to fear from the publishers.

Ah. A misunderstanding. Jim, this was one of those times when I wasn't picking on SC,, or other producers.

The debate that arose was in regard to licensed usage in U.S. based shows in regard to the publishers/owners- something for which there is no blanket licensing or specific permissions given, unlike some other countries. Some folks here were under the impression that if the Karaoke Producers gave THEIR permission, and the venue paid PRO fees that such usage of the lyric swipes was somehow licensed all around, which is not the case.

Again, wasn't knocking the producers, but rather debunking a myth.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Except that it is the case. Whose permission is missing?

Nowadays, a little bit o' everybody. Originally it would have been the publisher/owner, but I guess I have to throw SC into the mix, since they seem to be the ONLY karaoke producer to care. Oh, I've heard about PR, but still waiting....

Now, if you were to state here, as you have on another thread, that the swipes ( which include producer logos) are covered by pro fees, life will certainly get interesting.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

just an add on to the blockbuster comment i made the last page....
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/11/no-more-please-be-kind-rewind-blockbuster-stores-to-finally-die-in-2014/

interresting point of note...

“This is not an easy decision, yet consumer demand is clearly moving to digital distribution of video entertainment,” said Joseph P. Clayton, Dish president and chief executive officer, in a statement. “Despite our closing of the physical distribution elements of the business, we continue to see value in the Blockbuster brand, and we expect to leverage that brand as we continue to expand our digital offerings.”

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Wait, I can paraphrase the Blockbuster guy: "Netflix ate our lunch while we greeted people at the door."

this may be what is being announced at the convention. the new requirement to be certified.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

WOW! The Willie Wonka karaoke soundtrack disc.- and certified! I can sing the Oompa-Loompa song! I mean, not well, but I could sing it. Besides a DVD rewinder is an update from my LaserDisc rewinder. COOL! Um, wait...can I use it professionally in public?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Maybe this will help

http://riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?cont ... ne_the_law

But then at the bottom of the page it says this:
* This site is intended to educate consumers about the issues associated with the downloading, uploading and consumer copying of music. It is not intended to offer legal advice or be a comprehensive guide to copyright law and the commercial uses of music.

This article brings to mind a question I've pondered for awhile on this site:

If you are an ODB host or even a "Certified" host, do you use MP3's you have made from your own personal CD's or have downloaded via iTunes (etc ...) during your shows?

If yes, wouldn't that be illegal according to this article? Shouldn't anyone and everyone doing a commercial show be using Original Disc even for music filler during their shows.

To answer your question, I don't I use OMDs for everything.

Actually OMD hosts who use those great older players ( Pioneer, JVC/RSQ triples, etc..)COULDN'T. However, newer players do have USB and card ports, so it's possible.

Some amps/mixers skip the question entirely, having built in FM radio recievers that kick in whenever a song ends (BGM function).

All that stuff being said, no one seems to be bothering DJs for their music,, so I don't see hosts being bothered for their non-karaoke (no lyric display) filler.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

every time you go to RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or any publisher or even the copyright laws from congress, every example of comercial use involves resale. DJ's, do not break copyright by copying discs to HDD. KJ's do not break copyright by copying to HDD. find me something otherwise.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens