Karaoke Forums

Joe, in all of the cases I listed there was a claim against PS for copyright infringement, even if PS initiated the suit. 8 cases.

I have posted SC's comparable list. It has five cases on it. Four of those cases were resolved by settlements in which SC was allowed to continue selling substantially all of the products in dispute, which means that at the end of the suit SC still had a license. The fifth one is pending.

As for PS, I've given you the case numbers and districts. Figuring out how those suits came out is an exercise left to the reader (you). As you do, remember that a reported dismissal does not mean that no money changed hands.

Who cares the number of suits Jim, money is changing hands on SC's part and PS's. Both are settling and paying the publisher's for material they didn't license and pay proper fees for in the first place. Manus used that material without the all important permission, which you want all hosts to hold so sacred. They used the material to make money just like the host used your material to make money. You might want to spin there is some difference but really their isn't. Both are using illegal material, in the manus case they are selling it as legal product. All the individual host is doing is providing a service.

Every CD is taxed and that money distributed.. I never found out exactly who gets it..

The tax is called a "Levy".

Such levies were first introduced in the USA in response to lobbying from the recording industry. With the advent of the Audio cassette, legislators were persuaded that cassette recorders would decimate sales of records as friend after friend would then make copies of only one purchased album. Levies today are assessed on recordable compact discs, a form of media that did not exist when levies were first conceived. Although the bulk of unrecorded compact discs are actually used in the computing industry, they are still "taxed" to provide a revenue stream to the recording industry.

Levies are often considered a compensation for illegal file sharing. This is debatable, however: levies could be seen as not being an advance for fines, but rather, only intended to compensate for copies in the private sphere that are legally allowed in many jurisdictions. A notable exception in Europe is the UK, that does not allow private copies. But generally legislators allow private copies for two reasons: firstly, because otherwise the enforcement would be unfeasible for private reasons, and secondly because the administrative burden would be disproportional.
Questions on fairness

A difficulty that immediately arises is the practical impossibility of devising a mechanism for distributing the proceeds to copyright holders that is considered "fair" by all copyright holders and consumers. Implemented systems are typically restricted to music and may distribute the proceeds proportionally to a measurement of sales of CDs in music shops or amount of air-play on radio or the like. This ignores other distribution channels such as the Internet, and it disproportionally benefits popular artists and publishers of the related products. Fairer methods would arguably involve extensive sampling of purchasers to determine actual recording behaviour, or alternatively paying all musicians at a simple flat-rate (the preferred method will depend on one's political views).

While the prime purpose of levy systems is to compensate authors, some part of the collected money is also used for general cultural funding purposes. In Germany this is even required by law. It acknowledges the purpose of cultural diversity - which is not necessarily identical to free market effects. This funding is usually executed by the same entities (collecting societies) that distribute the levy money to individual authors. One may question however whether these entities are properly qualified to make culture policy.

Levy systems assume that all authors want to exploit their work for money. However this is not always true, especially on the internet. Many authors do not write to entertain, but to inform readers, listeners and viewers. Often their purpose is to reach the widest possible audience rather than make the maximum profit from the copyrighted work by itself. The discrepancy between reality and the assumption underlying a levy system is growing as "web 2.0" matures, with pervasive user-supplied content, from Wikipedia to YouTube.[original research?]

A further problem is to find a proper tariff base for levies. Conceivably the levy may be a percentage of storage media sales price (e.g. 3% in the US). The implication of such a scheme is however that the author gets ever less as technology proceeds and becomes less expensive. But a price based on units of information (bits, or megabits) is not fair either, as for instance a DVD can be used to store a film, a computer game, a large amount of documents, or measurement data. The cost of producing a certain amount of bits widely varies by type of information. Measurement data is even not copyrighted at all. Yet in today's world of converging technology, storage media can be used for a wide range of purposes.

An implementation question that arises is whether the tax applies to any type of copyrighted work or is restricted to a limited field such as music. If it is restricted then the issue arises of how to collect the tax on media which can also be used for other purposes. The options include:

Collecting the tax on all media, regardless of the end use, and ignoring the injustice to purchasers with non-covered uses.
Allowing taxed and untaxed media to be sold, but with only the taxed media providing the copyright-relaxation benefits.
Collecting the tax on all media but allowing purchasers to claim a refund for media applied to non-covered uses.

Contrary Fairness arguments

Although these complexities make the systems of levies are far from perfect they do have some advantages related to fairness in that since there is compensation for private copying whereas in countries where there is no levies, there is a substantial amount of copying taking place without any due compensation being made.
With respect to fairness in countries with the levy everyone is shares in the financial burden caused by the levy. In countries that do not have the levy, many people are copying music and never receive any reprimands while others are made an example and prosecuted. This is the similar argument that non-proponents to the levy system use to show fault. They advocate that if the levy cannot be precisely applied to the people that are private copying, it is a faulty system. Likewise, if you cannot reprimand all people that are copying illegally and not compensating the music industry, this is also a faulty system. One system over subscribes, the other undersubscribes, both have faults.
Finally, those counties that do not have private copying laws are in fact making many of their citizens criminals. A law which makes potentially more than 50% of your population criminals does not seem to be a fair business practice. Lawyers rather than artists may well be the greatest beneficiaries in non-private copying countries. This argument assumes that private copying can only be allowed with a levy.


The Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

Some of them are also available on All Star's custom site.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

But are they sold/branded as Pocket Songs? Or just thrown in the mix where someone doesn't know which brand they are buying? The site I was talking about (however learned recently they no longer sell through there) actually sold the label 'Pocket Songs' and 'Just Tracks' (PS other brand).

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

It's hit or miss. You don't know what you are getting until you get them. When the first ones turned up on my All Star customs I got excited and ordered more Broadway songs thinking they would end up being PS--not so--some were completely unusable versions. But some of the country songs I got were PS. So you just never know.

Forgive me, but I think I will post a quote from you on a different subject, because it applies here:

"What you're talking about is a false equivalency.


I didn't think I needed to clarify, but apparently I was incorrect.

To my knowledge, the quantity of individual tracks in question regarding the suits against SC far and away outstrip those in question in regard to PS- to the point of the PS suits being almost negligible by comparison, especially - as you have pointed out in the past- in this litigation friendly atmosphere where so many businesses get sued because someone realizes they can.

Hope that makes my thoughts a bit more clear.

Anyone find anything on Sybersound yet?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

That's a post-hoc rationalization to try to salvage your argument once the facts showed the opposite of your assumptions to be true.

How, exactly, do you think the licensing process goes?

Does a manufacturer say, "Hey, I'd like to record this song for karaoke," then call up each of the three music publishers that own a piece of the song, negotiate individual contracts with each of them (all of which require multiple approvals from their corporate hierarchy), conclude the agreements, record the song, then release it?

No. That might happen for a one-off song with a single publisher.

But if that were the process every time, no karaoke music would ever get made, and certainly none within the popular lifetime of most songs.

Instead, this is the way it works: The manufacturer negotiates a master license agreement with each of the major publishing groups for a period of years. In those master license agreements, the basic terms are set--fixing fees, royalty rates, off-limits songs/artists, mechanisms for auditing and payment, etc.--and a blank or mostly blank "Exhibit A" is added as a placeholder . When the manufacturer wants to release a new song, the manu sends an email to the licensing manager(s) at the publisher(s) who own a piece of that song, asking them to (a) confirm ownership percentages and (b) add the song to their Exhibit A. The approval generally comes via email. Sometimes it's a preliminary approval. Sometimes it takes months to get a final approval because of the corporate structure at the publisher as well as the need (sometimes) to get individual approval from the songwriter...who may not be easy to reach or may not have that kind of question on his/her priority list. Most of the time, the publisher is satisfied as long as the royalties are paid; they routinely cash royalty checks that are for songs they haven't formally approved yet.

That is simply the way the music publishing industry works. Licensing isn't like buying a house. It's more like buying a car. Have you ever bought a car on a weekend? Most banks' loan departments aren't open on the weekends, so they give the finance guy some guidelines for what they'll approve and at what rates. The finance guy wants to make sure you leave the dealership with a car, so he'll get all the paperwork and as long as you've got decent credit and look like you're not going to be a problem, you're driving home in your new car even though the bank hasn't approved your loan yet. They'll get all the formalities taken care of later, because everybody is too busy to do things all at one time and together.

Every once in a while, things get out of whack, and there's a dispute about who owes what, who's been paid, etc. The result is a lawsuit. In that lawsuit, the publisher is going to identify every possible song of theirs that the manufacturer has recorded and accuse the manu of infringement of all of them, because if they leave off one, that one will not be factored into the process. Then the books get audited, the paperwork gets audited, they formalize all of the informal licensing, straighten out anything that shouldn't have been informally approved, calculate the back royalties (if any), the manu cuts a check, and there's a dismissal.

There are more songs on the SC list than on the PS list because SC's historical catalog is much, much larger.

You keep expecting licensing to be this formal process where everybody conscientiously checks off boxes with multiple concurrences, like a complicated surgery, and assigning moral significance to the failure to adhere to your uninformed value judgments. Not even the publishers expect this to go like you say it should. Why? Because it would be an impediment to their making money. The ONLY way the publishers make money is by licensing their catalogs. Imagine what it would be like if you had to execute a formal agreement for everything you purchased at the grocery store. You'd starve. Nobody wants that...except people, like you, who have a bone to pick with SC and have to come up with a way to justify casting it as the bad guy.

So Jim SC and PR have taken a page out of how licensing really works book and applied it to the issue of unlicensed karaoke operators? If it is found that the host or hostess is operating with unlicensed material, all they have to do is license GEM or subscribe to Cloud and that at least will satisfy SC and PR? I mean the operators are not pirates then just unlicensed users of the product. After all putting the pirates out of business would be an impediment to SC's or PR's profits wouldn't it?

Jim or James had you just gone after the kj for your trade mark suit
you would not be getting a black eye here
my problem with sound choice is you are involving the bars in the suit
which is giving karaoke a black eye which is costing all kjs money
and if you cant see that shame on you
by you going after the venue just makes me think of you as a ambulance chaser
that's it in a nut shell

I have been karaoke hosting over 19 years Mike, and in all that time I have only met one host approached by SC. When it was learned he had no assets the matter was dropped. Involving venues has to be part of the legal process if it is to be carried on. The pirates would have no place to play if not for the venues, it is the venues who are making the money off the karaoke, the host is merely providing a service. That is why both host and venue are sued, and that is why many venues rather than be bothered with the legal process, opt to drop karaoke. What many hosts hoped would help the industry has really hurt it quite a bit.

Please don't insult my intelligence. The Famous Music Suit questioned 255 separate tracks. ( I have both saved and printed that list) I don't think that ALL of the suits COMBINED regarding PS equaled 10% of that ONE SUIT directed at SC. Then add in the other SC suits... Sorry, but no, not even a decent try.

As for license after a settlement? You are using language as a defense. SC paid a settlement, and at that point was no longer liable for the product that they put out without permission. While- IN EFFECT- this seems like licensing, it is NOT neccesarily so. If the Eagles publishers wished to go after KJs for using SC8125, they have that option, as no PERMISSION was EVER GIVEN to PRODUCE IT.

It is my opinion that your statements may give KJs a false sense of security, and my belief that this is an example of SC further screwing what used to be their customer base.

Just my opinion- your mileage may vary.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Geez, really?

_________________
-- Mark

Looks like SC is appealing the rulings.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circui ... 6/13-4105/

_________________
-- Mark

In for a penny. In for a pound. They really had no choice but to appeal a ruling that would ruin any chance for winning any future suits based on Trademark Infringement. I look forward to seeing the final outcome. Just because someone appeals something, doesn't mean that they will automatically win their apeal. They have nothing to lose by trying.

i hope they do win this one. this is against someone manufacturing illegal drives so this is the kind of case we have all wanted them to do. This is a real company that actually did cost SC money and not just a host "technical infringer".
go get 'em

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

Generally speaking, that would be a situation where the end would justify the means, which I have heard several on here preach against. The outcome has to be based on what is legally supported, not a result that is supported...

Looks like KKS is denied any more fees or sanctions.....

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 165800/126

_________________
-- Mark

Insane - Did you actually read the order? While the judge denied additional fees, he also made a very revealing statement: "In addition Plaintiff’s alleged failure to produce favorable evidence at trial, which Plaintiff had previously indicated it had and would use, did not harm the Defendants, and in fact could only have helped them at trial." What he too is saying is that Slep-tone and its attorneys are bluff machines. They huff and puff about their alleged pile of evidence against defendants, but when pressed at trial, the bag is empty. This is why Slep-tone continues to refuse to answer discovery seeking support for its claims, conduct which Judge Wright found to be in bad faith. Why "tell" defendants there is no evidence when they can keep threatening and hoping to squeeze settlement money. Judge Wright was right indeed. "Nothing more than a shakedown."