Karaoke Forums

Joe, you've gotten rather badly off track, so bear with me while I figure out where you are and how to get you straightened out.

Watch out Joe.... He's gonna put you on "The Rack."

this thought popped into my head (and hurt rather badly )
if for example SC had a license to press 5000 discs of a song, could they press 2500 and then Digitrax could pay the difference between the disc and download price to allow for 2500 downloads of a previously disc based license?
like "they paid you for another 2500 discs, but instead of the (for arguments sake) $0.62 per song they already paid, since we are now distributing them can we pay you the $0.07 difference for each track to change the license to download"?

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

Yes, but they would have to sign an onerous contract, pay a $550 fee to pay for the invasive audit that they will be required to submit to, which includes scrutinizing all the other manufacturer's items to ensure that they complying with proper licensing.

Sorry for the delay. I have been trying to figure out how best to put this so you will understand it, because there is virtually nothing in the above that even really computes.

"MCPS is the ONLY possible licensing SC has" - No, this is a long way from being correct. SC has active direct licenses with publishers, and it is certainly capable of obtaining new licenses if necessary.

"THAT [MCPS license] would only [be] for previously made discs and limited to a finite number" - All of the discs that are licensed through MCPS have already been made, purchased by SC, and delivered to SC, and they sit in a warehouse awaiting use. Of course that number is finite. But those discs are not part of the Cloud and never will be.

"Have all of SC's tracks now been licensed by another agency for SC?" - There is no other agency, except for Harry Fox for the mechanical license component, that licenses tracks for karaoke production. Synch and lyric reprint licenses are arranged at the publisher level. All tracks that will be sold or distributed through the Cloud platform, IF ANY, will be distributed based upon licenses that Digitrax obtains. Please note that a license is generally not for a specific manufacturer's track, but reproduction and distribution of any instance of that title--so if Digitrax has a license that covers "Crazy," it could theoretically distribute the SC version of that track (assuming that SC agreed) under that license.

"If so, what happened to Stingray's ownership of the library?" - Nothing. Stingray does not own the entire catalog. Also, SC has licensed back its catalog.

"how does SC plan to make more tracks available ( and get paid for them) in excess of those which may have been covered by the license" - It's a different license. SC still has the right to withhold permission for Digitrax to distribute the tracks themselves, and so Digitrax will pay SC (and others) for the right to do so, if it comes to fruition.

You've got it, Jim. The reason I use "In my opinion" or "I believe" in posts such as that is not to cover my butt, but because I acknowledge the possibility that I could be mistaken.

In this case I don't believe I am, but I can wait....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

As I understand it, the problem with that is that they have already pruduced and imported all of the discs that were allowed by the license. Making tracks available in any other way would exceed the licensed quantity.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

That's why a new license would be obtained.

Holy crap!! You mean I was actually right about something for a change?? Color me shocked

Its not like I haven't been paying attention to the NUMEROUS posts stating that karaoke had several different licenses, and the actual music is completely owned by the person who records it *new work and all that*

hmmm still can't get the quote feature to work.. Guess I'll have to switch browsers again. In any case, to whomever mentioned it. The reason SC can't grant full rights over their karaoke tracks is because of the LYRICS which are completely seperate from the sound recording *is that the right terminology for it, i'm still not 100% clear on it*

The master rights to the lyrics *which i believe is where sync rights comes in.. but if not I'm sure Mr. Harrington will correct me* stay with the original copyright owner.

Never quite agreed with that.. I always thought that a karaoke track should be considered a completely separate entity and become the property of the producer that made it, but then I don't write the laws so...

ok rant mode over. thanks for listening

-James

*********************************************
Sorry for the delay. I have been trying to figure out how best to put this so you will understand it, because there is virtually nothing in the above that even really computes.

1) "MCPS is the ONLY possible licensing SC has" - No, this is a long way from being correct. SC has active direct licenses with publishers, and it is certainly capable of obtaining new licenses if necessary.

2) "THAT [MCPS license] would only [be] for previously made discs and limited to a finite number" - All of the discs that are licensed through MCPS have already been made, purchased by SC, and delivered to SC, and they sit in a warehouse awaiting use. Of course that number is finite. But those discs are not part of the Cloud and never will be.

"Have all of SC's tracks now been licensed by another agency for SC?" - There is no other agency, except for Harry Fox for the mechanical license component, that licenses tracks for karaoke production. Synch and lyric reprint licenses are arranged at the publisher level. All tracks that will be sold or distributed through the Cloud platform, IF ANY, will be distributed based upon licenses that Digitrax obtains. Please note that a license is generally not for a specific manufacturer's track, but reproduction and distribution of any instance of that title--so if Digitrax has a license that covers "Crazy," it could theoretically distribute the SC version of that track (assuming that SC agreed) under that license.

"If so, what happened to Stingray's ownership of the library?" - Nothing. Stingray does not own the entire catalog. Also, SC has licensed back its catalog.

3) "how does SC plan to make more tracks available ( and get paid for them) in excess of those which may have been covered by the license" - It's a different license. SC still has the right to withhold permission for Digitrax to distribute the tracks themselves, and so Digitrax will pay SC (and others) for the right to do so, if it comes to fruition.[/quote]
*************************************************************************************

1) Are you saying that all of SC's tracks o( or those that would be available from the cloud) will have U.S. based licensing, or that they do already?

2) Thank you for:

"All of the discs that are licensed through MCPS have already been made, purchased by SC, and delivered to SC, and they sit in a warehouse awaiting use. Of course that number is finite. But those discs are not part of the Cloud and never will be."

That information- since it was presented by you- clears up a lot of misconceptions. Read, saved, printed, and filed.


3) Here's where we run into disagreement. It is my understanding that licensing of Sound Choice tracks cannot be handed off to Digitrax, as SC is the exclusive license holder for SC tracks.

There COULD be one exception: If SC and Digitrax were to reside under a single corporate umbrella and/or ownership. Do / will they?

Now, you mentioned that tracks released on the cloud would be covered by another type of licensing entirely.

Are you saying that all such tracks will be covered by new licensing -presumeably by Harry Fox here in the U.S.- and that SC is in the process getting that licensing now?

I also have a question regarding Digitrax which you may be able to answer, though not necessarily your bailiwick:

Unlike other download sites, will Digitrax include a text.doc with each download specifically verifying permission for U.S. based KJs to use their tracks in their shows? This would take any liability for their use off of the KJs shoulders and leave it with Digitrax.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

1) It is my understanding that Digitrax's licensing is U.S.-based. Any use of SC's tracks via a Digitrax platform would be based on U.S. licenses. All SC products sold or distributed in the US have US licensing. Even the GEM series has US licensing, despite having been licensed through MCPS, because at the time the discs were purchased from the UK supplier and imported into the U.S.,the PRS for Music license covered the U.S.

2) You're welcome. Glad to clear that up.

3) SC and Digitrax do not share any common ownership, nor do they reside under the same corporate umbrella. They are two separate companies, and any transaction between them, such as for the Cloud (which, I cannot emphasize enough, is NOT a "done deal"), will be an arm's-length transaction. I do not understand what you mean by "handed off to" Digitrax.

4) At its core, licensing for any given track involves getting sufficient permission from each person/entity that holds rights in each piece of intellectual property that will be used. Let's say you're Digitrax, and you want to release new copies of the Sound Choice version of "Oh, Pretty Woman," as made famous by Roy Orbison, so that the track looks and sounds just like the one on The Foundation, in the U.S. That song was written by Orbison and Bill Dees. There are four publishers who have various rights in the song--Barbara Orbison Music Company, Orbi Lee Publishing, R Key Darkus Publishing, and Sony/ATV Acuff-Rose Music. Stingray owns the copyright in the karaoke track itself, but SC has certain rights as well as the trademark rights. You need (1) a mechanical license from Harry Fox to cover the sound recording, (2) a synchronization license to cover, well, the synchronization, (3) a lyric reprint license to cover the display of the lyrics, (4) a reproduction license for the karaoke track (from Stingray, possibly with sign-off from SC), and (5) a trademark license to allow the use of the SOUND CHOICE logo. Usually, but not always, only one publisher of the four has to sign off on the copyright licenses, but the synch rights and lyric reprint rights are not always both held by one publisher, and those rights might be segmented in unusual ways. In practice music publishers usually appoint a representative who handles many publishers at one time.

There are lots of different ways to accomplish all of this. Before mid-2010, you could do it by going to MCPS and getting a PRS for Music KAR license. (MCPS serves as the agent for all music publishers, more or less.) That avenue has been foreclosed for new copies. Now it's a simple matter of contracts, though in practice it can be enormously complicated due to the balkanization of rights. But it is important to remember that it is essentially only a matter of contracts, not so much copyright law, and the basic form of contract is "pay me some money and I agree not to sue you for doing something I have the legal right to sue you for doing."

5) I have no idea.

"so if Digitrax has a license that covers "Crazy," it could theoretically distribute the SC version of that track (assuming that SC agreed) under that license. "

so if they have a download sync license for crazy, it is not for the Mr. Entrertainer version of crazy, but that one license will cover xxx number of copies of the song Crazy by whichever manu they have agreements with? basically if SC does get involved they would not need another license from the publisher for the Sc version specifically, the one they already have covers all versions of Crazy (from the same artist of course)?

is that right?

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

With the exception of the mechanical license, which covers a specific recording (and which is compulsory--meaning that the publisher cannot say no), it is my understanding that this is correct. Of course, the publishers could include such a term in the agreement if they wanted to.

so they would need to pay the HFA for each different manu recording, and publishers for sync licenses for each song title by one artist regardless of manu. That would no longer be the responsibility of the original manu, at least for the copies sold through Digitrax or Tricerasoft, etc.

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

That is my understanding, because it is a compulsory license that is based upon the creation and distribution of a derivative work (a sound recording of a musical work).



Each song title period, regardless of artist. So "I Will Always Love You" by Dolly Parton and "I Will Always Love You" by Whitney Houston would come under the same license.



If Digitrax or Tricerasoft has the proper licensing with the publisher, sufficient to cover all of the rights necessary to copy and distribute, then the original manu would only need to sign off (most likely, for a royalty).

Jim, I see a few statements with which I disagree, especially the one title/various artist reference. However, until and unless SC offers tracks via the Karaoke Cloud, I see no reason to belabor those points at this time.

I do ask another question. I had inquired whether Digitrax would include a text document with each track downloaded confirming that said track was licensed for use in a U.S. based karaoke show, thereby removing any liability from the host and assuming it themselves. I understand that you may not know the answer.

However, might I ask you to direct us to someone who DOES know the answer? Simply put, if they won't supply such verification, chances are that the tracks are NOT licensed for use in U.S. based shows no matter what they claim.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

It wouldn't be the first time KJs were duped into using something illegal.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I honestly don't know. I disagree with your premise, though.

I don't know why. A download site is responsible for it's content and the availability thereof. However, once a KJ accesses a track on the site, and creates a copy of the track on his PC, it's his production. The site is not liable for how it is used. I believe these download site owners know that and love it, because the liability for use rests on the shoulders of the KJ who created his file- not the site owners.

Now, if a site were to supply a text.doc with each track stating that said track is licensed for use in U.S. based karaoke shows, the liability is lifted of of the KJs' shoulders and onto the site owner.

How many times have we seen download sites created, then disappear, or change the wording in their permissions to "Home Use Only"?

Nope, I stand by my statement : If a site won't offer documentation of permission, they probably don't have it.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I've been doing some thinking on something else Jim had mentioned. He said that IF SC gets involved with the Karaoke Cloud, new U.S. licensing would be required, which is correct.

What I have been thinking about is not a knock on anyone, but more just a question of good business.

Re-licensing all of SC's tracks here in the U.S. is a pretty costly process. The question is, would it be worth it?

SC hasn't produced new tracks for several years. During that time many - make that probably "most" hosts have either bought the SC tracks that they wanted, or covered the trcks they wanted with other manufacturers.

In other words, would they make their licensing fees back from the sale of old product?

Yes, new KJs may come on the scene and have heard of the SC name and may want to buy some tracks. However, as the product ages with no new production,the label will become less needed, as newer and more recognizeable labels producing new product gain more exposure. Add to that the negative connotation now connected to SC- decreasing their exposure even more, and I'm not sure that re-licensing would be a profitible business decision. Of course, if they decide to start producing new tracks at a decent rate, that all could change....Maybe.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."