Karaoke Forums

So there is none. Thank you for acknowledging that making copies for commercial purposes is illegal.

And again you failed to show where in the Act you can do so.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

So- you acknowledge that you either won't read, can't read, or can't comprehend what others post. Thank you.

For others: Karaoke producers do not make product for commercial use, and they have no licensing to pass on for that purpose. This makes Timberlea's question COMPLETELY MOOT.. Therefore, copies made for single site backups are entirely within the usage as meant by the producer.

Timberlea, if this is difficult for you to understand, please PM me and I will put it in the simplest terms available.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe is correct in the fact that using SC, CB PHM, ASK, PY, etc for commercial karaoke is actually techincally illegal.
you can not under current copyright laws make money with karaoke. original or copy the manus can not give commercial license, only the original publishers can (Sony, Columbia, Def Jam, etc) give that permission. karaoke manus can not give or deny it themselves. If they can and i am mistaken, provide that information.

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

So you want to play with terms, no problem. Using copies for public use without authorization is not allowed. How's that. You may copy for private use but not public use.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

originals are for private use only but not public use.
backups are for private use only and not public use.
ASCAP, SESAC, BMI license for public use, and same as the DJ's and VJ's (who use audio visual works publicly from computerized copies) their licensing is directly for the rights holders (supposedly, but that's a different conversation) and do as a matter of dialy routine authorize such use of audio visual works to be used publicly from copies.

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

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow thoughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

---Alexander Pope



This is kind of a dumb statement.

I could just as easily say NO AUTO MANUFACTURER SELLS LICENSED CARS. It's technically true, but it's also meaningless because the licensing burden is on the owner of the car, not on the manufacturer. Ford didn't break any laws or encourage lawless behavior by selling me an Explorer that didn't come pre-licensed. And it's certainly not illegal for me to drive my licensed Ford Explorer on the public roads.



I assure you that the people who are responsible for obtaining the necessary licenses--the venues where you play--are very much in danger of being "bothered" by the owners/publishers. If you don't believe me, have them stop paying ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC and see how long it takes to start getting letters.



This is garbage. It's just not true. But if you think it is true, all you have to do is point us to a case citation. Federal courts don't make things legal outside specific cases, so show me some binding case law that says what you say the law is.



No, not if the PRO license fees have been paid.



This isn't accurate. But I invite you to prove me wrong. Just show us the case (or cases, plural, because such an important principle of law would most likely be found in more than one case).



This is also garbage for the same reason as identified above.

It is not "technically illegal" to use any manufacturer's original product for commercial karaoke, as long as (a) the product itself was licensed, and (b) the PRO fees are paid. It is not illegal "under current copyright laws" to "make money with karaoke."

The Copyright Act provides the owner of copyright in a musical composition with five exclusive rights: (1) The right to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords; (2) the right to prepare derivative works; (3) the right to distribute the work in copies or phonorecords; (4) the right to display the work publicly; and (5) the right to perform the work publicly. (That's 17 U.S.C. § 106 for those who are keeping score.)

The music publisher who owns a particular composition has the right to issue licenses, which are essentially contracts in which the publisher promises not to sue for an act that would be an infringement, in exchange for payment of some money. Generally speaking, you only need licenses to cover the acts you are personally going to perform (or benefit from).

Manus need licenses under the first three rights, because they are going to be recording and synching a new track (a derivative work, right 2), reproducing that track (making copies, right 1), and distributing the copies they make (right 3). Once they sell a licensed copy, those rights are taken care of AS TO THAT COPY. They DON'T perform the work publicly, so they don't need and can't get that license.

On the performance end, however, there are some rights that need to be taken care of. The publishers want to be paid every time that composition is performed, so they aren't interested in issuing a blanket license that will follow the manufacturer's copy. Instead, they require the venue--who ultimately benefits from the performance--to get a license for each public performance of that composition. That's why the PRO organizations exist...to streamline that process. They charge rates according to a schedule that takes into account the size of the venue, the type of performance, and the frequency of performance.

It IS NOT ILLEGAL to use a properly licensed original disc to put on a karaoke show...as long as the public performance license has been obtained.

Now, I have one more thing to say about all of this: Copyright law is extremely complex. It is so highly specialized that years of study are required, even among otherwise highly educated and intelligent lawyers, to understand it. I have been studying this for fifteen years and I still find that there are things about it that I could understand better. The karaoke field has many bright people in it, intelligent people who are often highly educated. I don't regard this as a profession for dullards, not in the slightest. But these are highly nuanced concepts that you can't really get by spending a few hours reading on the Internet.

"The Copyright Act provides the owner of copyright in a musical composition with five exclusive rights: (1) The right to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords; (2) the right to prepare derivative works; (3) the right to distribute the work in copies or phonorecords; (4) the right to display the work publicly; and (5) the right to perform the work publicly."

as for the private vs commercial debate, which of those 5 licenses covers whether a recording can be used for commercial use by the end user?

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

ORIGINAL manufacturers' discs are not licensed for public use. Therefore, asking if COPIES of the original manufactures' discs are licensed for public use is akin to asking if the copies can be used to make pocketbooks. The question itself is a non-sequitor.

Now, if you were to ask me if the ORIGINALS are licensed for public use, the question would make sense to ask, and I would answer with a resounding "no".

Asking if copies of original product unlicensed for a particular usage ARE licensed for that usage is patently ridiculous.

Any more clear?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Give it up Joe you can't argue with someone that "thinks", he knows everything about U.S. law, but lives in another country.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Yes, because English is so hard to comprehend. The English is easy, the understanding of law is what is difficult and after dealing with it for over 30 years, I think I can understand applicable Sections of law regardless of country of origin. And when a specialist in American IP law (James Harrington) agrees or seldom corrects me, then I know I'm on the right track. He may be SC's attorney but he can't change the laws as they are written.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Agreeing or corresponding with one's interpretation of a law does not in and of itself create a higher probability of correctness, especially in areas that have never been specifically ruled on. An observation that is not difficult to make is that one could conclude that there appears to be a higher percentage of agreement (bordering on 100%) than most law offices would have among their own lawyers on any given subject...

What a spin on nothing--if you bought the product fine--if you stole the product beware--what is so complicated?

Taking into account the entirety of both sides of this subject, apparently there is a lot to be confused by. As noble as the whole "right and wrong" debate is, it is not necessarily the determining factor is what is legal or not legal...

Please take note that- despite Jim Harrington's rather lengthy post- he has not cited ANY licensing for commercial usage of the sweeps display even with ORIGINAL SC discs.- effectively negating pretty much his entire post. I state unequivocally that copies made for single site backups carry all of the permissions and licensing that the originals do, for those uses stated per intent. IF the originals were commercially licensed, then the backups would be as well- though that is not the case- which is why we depend on the sufferance of the publishers/owners. However, the backups are no LESS permitted and licensed than their original counterparts. Let Jim Harrington cite differently.

But wait a sec. Just for the fun of it ( and it IS wet-yourself-funny) if you PC folks feel that I am wrong, and my duplicate ( disc to disc/media to same media) copies are not good for back up. OK. Keeping in mind that even SC states that THEY CANNOT give permission to media shift ( meaning their audits and promises to turn a blind eye are legally worthless), that would mean that you PC hosts are stating that your media shifted ( with no permission from publisher/owners and even with SC "just not looking") tracks are illegal and can't be used commercially. You would be stating that you run an illegal show.

Are you SURE that single site backups aren't as permissable as the originals???



Kind of like why the SC debates have died down- they have become a joke in court, lost credibility with KJs, and most now realize that the entire hypothesis on which their cases are based is pretty much junk law.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

In every contested case SC brings there is or are lawyers on the other side that disagree with Jame's position. Of course he isn't going to disagree or correct you when he agrees with your position. If a lawyer from the opposing position were here it would be quite a different story. I firmly believe that neither side is right and neither side is wrong so I am not "picking" at you but making the position argument.

JH is paid to take a certain position so that is what he does. His arguments would be almost a complete 180 if he were paid to take the alternate position. That's what lawyers do. They take money to argue a position and sometimes they would personally disagree with that position. I am sure James does agree with the position he argues so I am not questioning that. It doesn't make that position right or wrong and the outcome sometimes does not always represent "justice" simply because the actual "right" attorney did not present their case properly. It happens all the time.

People would be very wise to keep this in mind when taking "sides".

*sigh*

If by "commercial usage" you are referring to the use of original SC karaoke discs to put on a commercial karaoke show, then the licensing for commercial usage is covered by the standard BMI/ASCAP/SESAC license, with fees charged based on the karaoke matrix, which is what I said before.

If you mean something else, then you've confused me.

The thing you seem not to understand here is that "licensing" is approached from a "not negative" proposition rather than a "positive" proposition. Any particular act may implicate rights belonging to several different parties, each of whom has the right to say no and block that act. The fact that you have permission from one party does not mean that you can do anything without permission from the other parties.

Let's take the situation in which you play a karaoke track that embodies a song whose rights are administered by BMI, from an original SC disc in a bar that has paid its BMI fees according to the proper schedules.

In that situation, the rights that are potentially involved are (a) the public performance of the audiovisual work (the karaoke track) under 17 USC § 106 (owned by SC or its assignee); (b) the public performance of the underlying musical work (the composition) under 17 U.S.C. § 106 (owned by the publisher); and (c) the display of the trademarks and associated trade dress (owned by SC).

You need permission, or at least a reason why no permission is needed, sufficient to address all three of those rights.

For right (b), the blanket agreement with BMI covers it.

For right (c), because you are using original discs, the display of the trademarks and associated trade dress as prepared in and intended by the track, without more, is without question a fair use and therefore a complete defense to trademark infringement.

Now, the question is, what covers the rights in part (a)? If we were only talking about the sound recording, then there would be no question: There is NO public performance right for sound recordings. That's why radio stations don't pay the recording artist every time they play a song, but do pay the music publisher (in reality, BMI/ASCAP/SESAC) instead.

In my opinion, unless the disc was sold with the express restriction that public performance was not allowed, that is probably sufficient to create an estoppel against enforcement of the copyright (implied license), but that appears to be an untested question.



Well, since you stated it unequivocally, then that's good enough.

My citation is as follows:

17 U.S.C. § 106. Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; ... .

A backup is a reproduction--I think we can all agree on that point. Section 106(1) places within the exclusive domain of the owner of the copyright the right to make reproductions. Of the 17 sections that present statutory exceptions to 106(1), only 107 (copyright fair use) is of any relevance to the typical karaoke show. But fair use is a defense, so if there is a case to be made, you'll need to make it.

Then,

17 U.S.C. § 501. (a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. ...

Ball is in your court.



The reason why SC says it cannot give full permission to media-shift is because SC does not own all of the rights implicated by the act of media-shifting. As I have explained above, to be fully "licensed," you need coverage for each of the implicated rights, whether through an express or implied license or a full defense to an infringement action. SC does, however, own some of those rights, and SC's permission--with all the conditions appurtenant thereto--is therefore necessary even if it is not sufficient by itself.



Because what you refer to as "single site backups" require fair use analysis, and the use of originals does not, I'm going to go with "yes."



Except that it isn't junk law.

We haven't lost a contested Rule 12 motion.

We haven't lost summary judgment (except one that was reversed by the Court of Appeals).

We've won twice in contested trials where unauthorized media-shifting was at issue.

The SC debates have "died down" because there really isn't much of a question about the validity of the suits anymore. The claims are valid.

But keep thinking otherwise, if it makes you happy.

I have a question on section 602. While the exporters can't sell to the U.S. for distribution, it seems there is a bit of a loophole as far as importing one copy for personal use--as well as the recent court case that allowed resale on Ebay. But, with that little bit of knowledge is dangerous thing, I have read what could be an exception. We can import unless it would have been illegal to make the item in the US.

The example given was a copyright to a book might have fallen into Public Domain in the UK but still be under original ownership in the US where those rights have been extended to cover a longer period. So it WOULD be an infringement to import a copy of that book because publishing it under Public Domain in the US would have violated the copyright. Is it a stretch to think that importing a disc from a no fly artist made after Jan 2011 would fall under this? Am I making this too complicated?

The most recent Supreme Court case on this point is Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, which greatly expanded the applicability of the First Sale Doctrine (17 USC § 109) to foreign-produced works. Essentially, the rule today is that the FSD applies to copies that are legally purchased according to the law of the territory where they are purchased.

If you can arrange for a disc lawfully produced in the UK (for example, under MCPS licensing) to be purchased in the UK, then according to my reading of the law, you should be able to import that disc into the U.S. without the copyright owner's permission. The key factors are (a) lawful production and (b) lawful original sale, both judged according to the law where the first sale takes place. Of course, if the "no fly" list is the same in the UK, that wouldn't help; it has to be a lawful production/sale.

In fact, if one were in the UK, one might make a profitable business out of buying discs and shipping to the U.S. to avoid the copyright laws.

Please note that the above is information, not advice, and that you should seek advice from an attorney of your choosing regarding your specific situation.

Thank you for your reply. I know you have said you feel you are sometimes in the minority on that issue so I will take it as your opinion/reading of the situation and just add it to the scales when I weigh what I want to do.

1) Since, once again, you have not mentioned the lyric swipes ( the part in question) and seem pre-disposed not to, I would respectfully ask that you refrain from posting on other subjects (music only- covered by BMI, SESAC, and ASCAP, and ALREADY agreed to) for the sole purpose of confusing the the issue.

2) The SC debates have died down because SC has mis-managed their subcontractors, their business plan, and their court cases so badly that they have become a joke ( and an object of derision by some judges), and as such are without substance and therefore it seems that there is no real reason for debate. Some of their most devout followers have realized this and have moved on.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."