Karaoke Forums

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.

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.

My post was not in any way limited to the music. The copyright aspects of the lyric displays are covered by the PRO licensing.

Joe, there are only so many years one can discuss the same thing over and over again. Just speaking for myself, I haven't moved on but rather just decided to quit banging my head against the wall. I'm just stepping back for a bit, letting people dig their holes deeper than waiting to see what other shoes may drop. In the end, it is the outcomes of the court cases that will speak the loudest and I've noticed that while the filings may have slowed down, they are still happening and aren't going away.

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.
Exactly, and the same goes for public usage of discs. It would be the KJ's responsibility.



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.

I agree 100%



This is garbage. It's just not true.
Or, you being a man versed in law, can cite a single case where this has been proven wrong and the home user had to deal with a penalty.


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

Lyric swipes, Jim, lyric swipes.



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).

I have no idea what this answer even means. Please show where producers have defined usage ( which would effectively put them out of business), or where they have LICENSED COMMERCIAL USAGE, or have proven in any way that single site backups are illegal.



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).

So you are saying that KARAOKE PRODUCERS can license usage? Wouldn't that then include media shifting? ( Which we know they can't license).

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.

EXACTLY. They do not have performance licensing and cannot grant it. That would be the publishers/owners, and again we are talking about lyric sweeps.



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.

Ummmmm, kinda pointless to tell Harrington his input is not welcomed on a thread called "Harrington: Trademark Question."

wait.....the video portion is converted by ascap, sesac, bmi as well?

Without someone to watch the hen house our future would get shorter and shorter as more pirates would come into existence.

my only disagreement of this is DJ's have many more pirates out there and the DJ business is not going anywhere.

Well gee, if that's the case, why would SC be SUING folks for said display? I mean, if the fees to the above organizations cover it and all. Those fees are supposed to cover all owners, artists, etc. Even if SC's claims that their tracks are theirs, as well as the logo, all part of the PRO fees, right? Just wondering....

my only disagreement of this is DJ's have many more pirates out there and the DJ business is not going anywhere.

I agree with your assessment Paradigm, but here is the big difference: DJ's have no public displays (TVs) and trademarks to display. It has been shown that copy rights are too difficult to defend in comparison to trademarks. Now a Video Jockey might have more to worry about.

That is because the DJ business has no middleman with a vested interest.

Chris, another VERY valid point.

and that was my point
piracy is not going to kill karaoke any more than it has killed DJ's, the middle man will kill karaoke if it dies.