Karaoke Forums

Actually it isn't really hard at all to separate the audio from the video, but I guess I don't understand what it is that you're getting at here.



Well there isn't an "automatic" compulsory, it's a process that is used if the composer or owner of the work either can't be located or won't voluntarily agree to a licensing agreement, in which case the licensee must file a form with the copyright office and pay the filing fee (I think it's still $20). He/she must also file a monthly report and an annual report and pay the statutory rate of .091 for each unit sold on a monthly basis. In other words it's a pain in the arse as most licensing agreements only require a quarterly report and royalty payment. There usually isn't an annual report either.

Compulsory licenses are for the audio portion only and have to fall under the category of "phonorecord" in order to be eligible. Hence if there is a video portion sufficient to render the work as an audio/visual work it does not qualify for a compulsory license. This is why sound recordings formatted for karaoke (i.e. those that include a visual display of lyrics) are not eligible for compulsory licensing because the courts have erroneously ruled that the graphic display of lyrics is sufficient to qualify as an audio/visual work.

Bottom line, in my opinion the law written as it is currently, is sufficient to protect the rights of the composer and the owner of the sound recording. It's the interpretation of the law in my view is where the crux of the problem lies.