Karaoke Forums

This particular pile of steaming manure is exactly why certain mfrs. have gotten sued. "We always do it this way" does not now nor has ever cut it legally. Until DOCUMENTED LICENSING IS IN HAND, THERE IS NO LICENSING. Those who choose to hope for the best and produce before receiving documented licensing are those who not only get sued, but deserve it. A perfect example: This is what happened to SC - per Jim's own statement - in regard to the Eagles disc 8125, and SC had to pay for it. Though still never licensed, they had to shell out just to limit future liability.

Sorry Harrington, it isn't as hard as you make it out to be. There was plenty of people with "No resources" as you put it (I'm guessing by resources you mean money) that paved the way for a lot of law changes in this country.

Cesar Chavez had no money, a 7th grade education, and he rallied people together to make changes in labor laws. Got rid of the short ho, got migrant workers the right to earn minimum wage, and got them the right to use our local services. In fact, he lived and died here in my home town.

If you rallied the KJ's together instead of splitting them apart, then I wouldn't be saying this. So far, you've succeeded in creating 2 groups that are constantly bickering. It does nothing to solve our problems, or Kurts.

No, I don't think Kurt is an idiot. I just think he takes bad advice from shysters like yourself looking to make a buck.

It really doesn't matter what YOU'RE convinced of. the point is that when a karaoke company makes a RE-Production recording of a song, That Re-Recording (Sound Recording) belongs to them and is usually done under a compulsory license. the Re-Recording is their copyrighted work. That being said, at that point, they can license the use of that recording to anyone they want (Eg: Ameritz makes a Re-Recording). it is their work. Whether they own the Original Or not. The underlying work (The Original Song) is NOT theirs. but those rights do not come into play until That Re-Recording is being sold to consumers on the open market. at that point whoever is selling the Re-Recording (Eg: Digitrax) is responsible for obtaining the rights to sell to consumers. Not the company that Made the Re-Recording.

Compulsory License:
A compulsory license provides that the owner of a patent or copyright licenses the use of their rights against payment either set by law or determined through some form of arbitration. In essence, under a compulsory license, an individual or company seeking to use another's intellectual property can do so without seeking the rights holder's consent, and pays the rights holder a set fee for the license.

Situation Example:

Company A makes a Re-Recording of blue by leann rimes. and pays the compulsory license. (Even if they don't pay the Compulsory License they still have a legal claim of ownership of that re-recording)

Company B gets permission to use that re-recording and acquires a proper license from the original artist/publisher.

Company B is not responsible for company A's Lack of proper licensing on the re-recording. if a publisher/artist wishes to pursue damages in court for an improper license when the re-recording was made, they must sue Company A. Even if this happens, The Agreement to use the re-recording between company A and Company B is still valid and is a separate issue.

...I just think he takes bad advice from shysters like yourself looking to make a buck.

We aren't the ones splitting KJs apart. There are those who operate legally, and there are those who don't. Those lines were drawn before we ever filed a lawsuit. As long as there are KJs who think that piracy is OK, there will be a divide.

If you rallied the KJ's together instead of splitting them apart, then I wouldn't be saying this. So far, you've succeeded in creating 2 groups that are constantly bickering. It does nothing to solve our problems, or Kurts.

We aren't the ones splitting KJs apart. There are those who operate legally, and there are those who don't. Those lines were drawn before we ever filed a lawsuit. As long as there are KJs who think that piracy is OK, there will be a divide
.

And then there are those who were operating legally (as in, they bought and paid for all of their song tracks through legitimate and recognized dealers), but never asked for your (SC's) permission to media shift. So, once they either got a Voluntary Audit or they were named in a Lawsuit (and as a result, got an Audit), they were suddenly legal in SC's eyes. And these KJs were NOT Pirates. Were they illegal before????????????????

piracy and shifting discs to HDD are two different things, you keep lumping them together.
the divide is not over piracy, but over hunting everyone who shifted.

I really wish you would review instead of relying on memory.

SC had an existing license set for the songs on 8125, at least some of which had been released on cassette. Before prepping 8125, SC got a preliminary pre-clearance to fix the disc and begin selling it. Later, the publisher decided that the existing licensing didn't fully cover those songs and demanded additional royalties and destruction of unsold product. SC paid the additional royalties to resolve the question of licensing and pulled the unsold product. Could they have fought it? Absolutely. But that would be expensive and uncertain, no matter how strong their position was. It wasn't worth the trouble to fight it.

It has been said many different ways on this forum, which might make it difficult to understand how anyone can equate the terms "legal" and "conforming" in regards to a company's policy. It doesn't take much to be able to conclude that just because a company makes a policy does not automatically make it legal...

There are those who operate legally, and there are those who don't. Those lines were drawn before we ever filed a lawsuit.

Your analysis makes more than one assumption that cannot be confidently used as a basis for the scenario. There has been many indications that CB lacked proper licensing for any number of recordings; well, at least more potentially incriminating evidence than your analogy represents (i.e. assuming certain compulsory licenses were paid is weak without proof; the fact that a company goes out of business shortly after losing a couple of lawsuits calling this possibility into question could be fairly damning)...

BC (old studio manager) had said that back in the 90's and exactly how you stated it now. They had permission for the music on cassette & initial permission for the cdg but it was pulled after the fact which led to it's recall.