Karaoke Forums

Up to that point 8125 was no different than any of the other discs they were doing. It was explained back then as well that the manufacturers that were getting into the cdg business using existing licensing for the audio cassettes. It wasn't until later that cdg got lumped into an audio visual category instead of a phonorecord/audio cd category - which started hampering all the manufacturers with the sync license requirements as well - applying for and often getting the licensing permission after the discs are already on the market, but in the 8125 case, it was denied thus the recall.

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

Thanks Lonman. In those days DK, Pioneer, SC , Priddis and others thought they COULD use the same licensing for cdg as they did for cassette. Sync and all the audio / visual work came 6 or 7 years after I started running shows. Pioneer and DK pulled out after that crap started.

I believe the word you are looking for is "Assumed"...

This is one of the things I LOVE about karaoke Version. I get an email confirmation of purchase as well as access to a PDF invoice of every single track I have purchased for the past 2 years. I have an excellent "good faith" argument if I ever need to provide one.

_________________
-Chris

Both allstar and tricerasoft also provide emails concerning songs you downloaded.

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

Unfortunately, you don't. If you look at the bottom of the page when you go to the Karaoke Version website, you'll see this:

"This website respects all music copyrights. All rights are reserved for the protected works reproduced on this website. Without permission, all uses other than home and private use are forbidden."

There is no good faith argument in the world that will get this music past your living room.

_________________
Birdofsong

....and if you look even further at the web site....

"Use for public events
We are happy to allow the use of our soundtracks for public audiences and other performances.
However, we'd like to remind you that in order to be legally compliant, you must receive an official agreement from your national music rights management office (PRS For Music in the UK for example).
In the case of a non-commercial private event, use of soundtracks is, of course, allowed and unrestricted."

http://www.karaoke-version.com/help/use_33.html

Which, if I am not mistaken, means that so long BMI, ASCAP, etc are being paid, then we are golden.

_________________
-Chris

Nope. PRS does indeed license tracks for Karaoke. ASCAP and BMI do not. They only license performance. BMI and ASCAP cannot give you permission to display lyrics synchronized to the soundtrack. The permission noted above is only relevant to the "soundtrack," itself. The paragraph above requires you to get permission from the only organizations that have that ability -- the publishers. There is no organization like PRS in the United States.

I don't suppose you've done that, have you?

_________________
Birdofsong

I agree... and it is why PRS cracked down on Selectatrack for clearly selling into the US. The publishers here in the US get nothing from Europe. They don't even have a "no-fly" list.. You can be sure that Tricera and Karaoke Version will face a similar if not more harsh fate...

No one has permission to use ANY kind of karaoke commercially.. The thing that makes it legal to use karaoke discs are the performance rights, which DO cover karaoke. If you contact all the different groups, I believe they will tell you that karaoke is included. Performance rights have absolutely nothing to do with sync or any of that other audio visual BS. It is simply the right to PERFORM a work in public.. End of story.

If I am wrong, I'm sure Mr. Harrington will be good enough to correct me.

At least it is in Canada. If you look on the application form for a bar or venue there is actually a line for karaoke, and it costs more than just having a jukebox or tvss.

and I believe others have double checked as well for the States.



Same arguements, different day. *sigh*

-James

I don't know most museums are free to the public in California tim, so how could I get ripped off. Not being an art expert I wouldn't know a good fake from the real, and sometimes the art experts are even fooled. We aren't talking about art but karaoke tracts, you really can't tell a fake from the real, at least most patrons can't. I don't know of many of my former customers who could tell a real DK tract from a copied one, and they don't really care as long as it's DK. Is it live or is it Memmerox?

Gee Jim I haven't heard of a lawyer like you since Perry Mason. You once said on this forum you make 400.00 an hour, a $5,000.00 cookie cutter settlement would pay for about 12.5 hours of your time. That is without kicking back anything to your client. If this legal process is only paying for your firm's overhead, that means you are working pro bono on these cases? I hope you have other paying clients, otherwise how do you support yourself? I mean those suits you go to work in aren't cheap. I think you are the one who is mistaken if you think any rational person would believe all of this. You get what you pay for, is that why so many of the cases that have gone to trial have not worked out in SC's favor? Is that why your appeal in Florida was also rejected? Yes you could have turned Kurt down, but just how many other clients were beating down your office doors? It has been my experience that the top notch legal services do expect to get paid but then they do get results as well. Is that why Kurt hasn't fired you like APS, he just can't afford to continue this legal process, unless you make it all possible?

You say you are trying to save your client's business, what business is that? SC is no longer in the production end of the business. They haven't been seriously in over 5 years as far as new production is concerned. The only business there is currently, is the legal process generates licensing GEM series business model. I can see why you would want to keep this going since it is paying your overhead, other wise you would be out of business, if SC is your only client.

On a technical level, treating karaoke tracks as audiovisual works--which is something the music publishers demanded--fundamentally alters the nature of the licenses that must be obtained for public performances. The simple reason for this is that the copyright in a sound recording (owned by the karaoke producer) does not include a public performance right (and therefore does not require a license from the karaoke producer), but the copyright in an audiovisual work (also owned by the karaoke producer) does.

That raises an interesting question: Do karaoke producers, who hold the copyright in the audiovisual work, have the right to prohibit (and therefore the right to license and collect a fee for) the public performance of karaoke tracks?

ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC do NOT collect royalties for karaoke companies. They collect ONLY for holders of composition copyrights. So there is no express license from the karaoke companies based upon the payment of those royalties.

I'm not sure I have a definitive answer to the question above.

However, as a practical matter, there are only two groups whose copyrights are implicated in the public performance of karaoke tracks: The music publishers (who receive royalties through ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) and the karaoke producers (who have traditionally been satisfied with the sale of the product).

Because the music publishers are receiving a royalty that is specific to karaoke (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC all include karaoke performances in their license fee calculations), I do not think the music publishers can complain on the basis of the public performance of the audiovisual work. After all, the music publishers DO NOT OWN the audiovisual copyright.

Could the karaoke producers? Maybe.

It is my understanding that the performance fees collected by the ABCs goes to the authors of the works. Since karaoke producers are not the authors, they would not be able to benefit from those collected fees.

Well there you have it. I wasn't exactly right, but then I wasn't completely wrong either. I'm sure all the naysayers will not believe it, or say that Mr. Harrington is biased, blah blah blah.. But as far as I am concerned, this would be good enough for me if I was still hosting.

-james

Probably not if they never got the proper licensing to produce the tracks to being with.

_________________
Birdofsong

The point of "confusion," if you can call it that, is in what appears to be a purposeful conflation of two fundamentally different kinds of behavior--for the purpose of spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt, just as you indicated--which are

(a) outright stealing of intellectual property, with little or no good-faith effort to comply with the law and rules of the use of that property, and

(b) a good-faith, but failed, effort to comply substantially with the law and rules of the use of that property.

Even though virtually all intellectual property owners would prefer perfect compliance with the law and its policies, I don't know of any intellectual property owner who treats those two types of behavior completely equally, even if category (b) sometimes results in litigation. But birdofsong is pretending that they are morally and legally equivalent and impliedly criticizing you for seeing them as different.

To apply a more concrete example: It has been alleged that the CB drives were not properly licensed. That may or may not be true. You purchased those drives in good faith from a known industry operator who has been in business for a long time, in reasonable reliance on that operator's licensing practices. If it is determined that the drives weren't licensed, or if the upstream IP owner contacts you with evidence that they were not and demands that you stop using them, perhaps you can't continue to use them in good faith. But that hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge.

On the other hand, if you bought a hard drive from a Craigslist vendor, at a bargain-basement price and no reasonable pretense of licensing, that would not be the exercise of good faith.

Speaking in my role as one who helps an IP owner enforce its rights, I approach things this way: When we undertake an enforcement action, we take the operator's good faith into account when determining how to proceed. If the operator was 1:1 but failed to follow the other steps in the media-shifting policy, we are more interested in getting the operator into future compliance than extracting compensation. A pirate who fights gets the hammer brought down on him. There is a continuum between those two poles. For example, an operator who was an outright pirate but earnestly wants to get legal gets easier terms.

It's not a question of "what can I get away with," but a question of what's reasonable under the circumstances.

Please Jim anything but that don't bring the hammer down!!!

Actually, I'm just criticizing him for having a double standard over the last couple of years for criticizing and finger pointing anyone he feels is remotely below his...eh hem...moral high ground...and then choosing what legalities he wants to uphold and which he doesn't. It's like saying that you weren't cheating on your girlfriend when you kissed the cheerleader under the bleachers because you didn't have sex.

Spin it any way you want, but something is still rotten in Denmark.

Oh, and by the way -- I don't ever need you to speak for me. I don't need anyone to put words in my mouth (incorrect ones, at that). I'm perfectly capable of interpreting my own posts if anyone has any questions, but I think they're pretty clear.

_________________
Birdofsong

Bless your heart. Did you think that was what I was doing?