Karaoke Forums

I have been following this forum for a long time. And, I have been very active in voicing my opinion against piracy. I am staunchly against it, and I wish it could be eradicated. Truth is, the folks that could have made that happen dropped the freakin' ball.

So here we go with my "Whether You Like It Or Not" rant....

Whether you like it or not.... karaoke manufacturers, like Sound Choice or Chartbuster, do not own anything in a karaoke file other than their trademark. To prove me wrong, provide specific case law.

Whether you like it or not.... karaoke manufacturers make or made what I/we might consider shady deals with distributors. For instance:

Chartbuster authorized their product to be sold on Super CDGs - specifically their Essentials Volumes 1-6, which contains 2,700 songs - which sold on Ebay for $30 per volume, possibly less. DK Super CDGs are also being sold on Ebay at this time - for about $120 per volume. Chartbuster is or was suspected of opening their own Ebay store to undercut their own dealers.

Whether you like it or not...karaoke music is covered under a bar's ASCAP/BMI license. As long as the bar is paying their fee's, the only recourse available to a karaoke manufacturer is trademark infringement.

Whether you like it or not....karaoke manufacturers used, tricked, misled, and royally screwed the honest KJ's who faithfully purchased their music for many years. By this, I mean the way that they flooded the market with their music right before going "out of business" <---- ha ha

Whether you like it or not....karaoke manufacturers used, tricked, misled, and royally screwed the honest KJ's who faithfully purchased their music for many years. By this, I mean the way they signed so many of us up for the fight against piracy only to find out that it was just a way for them to sell more of their music.

Whether you like it or not - the music that you purchased aint going to be worth but a tiny fraction of what you paid for it. Perhaps that is why they flooded the market - maybe they know that the world of karaoke music will soon be completely digital. Maybe they know that a karaoke show can be ran by a simple $35/month membership. Either way, if you amassed 20,000+ legal songs for your library and you think you can still even 25% of what you paid for it, think again.

Whether you like it or not....just because a karaoke manufacturer didn't pay the appropriate licensing fees has no bearing on a KJ. At ANY point, did The Eagles stand up and say that anybody caught playing a Sound Choice version of any of their songs will be sued? And did any of the artists or record labels that sued Chartbuster threaten the same legal action? We all know that Panorama/Top Hits Monthly was sued for not paying their royalties - but did ANYONE ANYWHERE go after ANY KJ for possessing or playing Top Hits Monthly Disks? Nope. So, it stands to reason that their legal drama has no bearing on us. As long as the bar pays their ASCAP/BMI fees, they are covered.

I have been and remain opposed to piracy, but I can't help but read the writing on the wall. Doesn't mean that the war is over, but if you are looking for the karaoke manu's to solve the problem, you are barking up the wrong tree.

_________________
I'm not a cheerleader, but I paid for my pom poms with my own money!

I am stunned by your absolutely awsome post, Troy. While I heartily agree, I'm wondering what flipped your switch- if it's ok to ask? Your stance in the past was a tad different.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

not as abrasive as it could have been, i think well put.
straight to the point, well written.

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

Excellent post and straight to the point. Where is the like button?

The manufacturer owns the "track," specifically the audiovisual work that is the thing that is played at the show. That's part of the copyright statute. Copyright belongs to the person who created the expression of the idea. The publisher owns the "underlying musical work."

SC and CB both owned their copyrights until they were assigned to others. SC still owns everything it has produced since April 2007.



This is not accurate. ASCAP & BMI cover the underlying musical work, not the actual audiovisual work that is played.



I'm going to assume this is directed at CB. CB is out of business, no quotes needed. DT is a separate company with new management.



What defines a pirate? Someone who has not paid for the music they are using. So I'm not sure what your complaint is. There is a long list of people we've put out of business instead of selling them music. What else would you have us do?



They didn't even sue SC. And the license fees were paid.



For the underlying musical work, yes.

For the karaoke tracks, no.

If this is true then why didn't SC put 8125 back in production thus making it worth a whole lot less?

_________________
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

Because SC agreed not to.

I assume that if SC did not agree to stop production, the Eagles would have filed suit!

Also I appreciate you setting the record straight of the OP's view on the legalities of the ASCAP argument.

Let's be more specific counsel:
The manufacturer owns the copyright to the "sound recording" that is played at a karaoke show as well as the trademark that is displayed on the screen. Anything else -- like the colors used and typeface -- is referred to as "trade dress."

They don't "own" anything they're required to license.... it's only licensed.



If DT is a separate company..... why would it need "new management?" Was there something wrong with the "old management?"


According to your other definitions, a person who has paid for the music but hasn't "asked permission" to play it off a laptop is ALSO a "pirate." The term "pirate" as you like to use it very fluid in nature.... like your client's never-ending turns and changes and twists on whatever their policy is... this week.






And now pay attention... presto-chango!





That seems weird to me... does it seem weird to you?

Why would you pay a for a "license" and then immediately agree not to use it?

It sounds and appears more like it was not a license at all, but more along the lines of restitution and/or a penalty for producing it without securing proper licensing for the track in the first place.

Why else (if it was licensed) would SC later put out the "RBTL" disc (showing their "mama" character basically flipping off the Eagles) with now licensed Eagles tracks with NO graphics? Or sell the tracks out of Australia?

Why else would any company pay for licensing and then agree not to produce? That's got to be right up there in the Ripley's records for stupid business decisions if they ever wondered why they ran out of money.

How many are on this list?
How can we verify this?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

TROY: Whether you like it or not.... karaoke manufacturers, like Sound Choice or Chartbuster, do not own anything in a karaoke file other than their trademark. To prove me wrong, provide specific case law.

HARRINGTON LAW: The manufacturer owns the "track," specifically the audiovisual work that is the thing that is played at the show. That's part of the copyright statute. Copyright belongs to the person who created the expression of the idea. The publisher owns the "underlying musical work."

TROY: Exactly. The music – meaning the arrangement of music notes belongs to the music publisher/artist. And, so do the lyrics. The only thing left is the trademark. And not coincidentally, that is the only thing (other than subsequent Unfair Competition) that, to my knowledge, is the only thing ever proven in actual court proceedings.

*******************************************************************

TROY: Whether you like it or not...karaoke music is covered under a bar's ASCAP/BMI license. As long as the bar is paying their fee's, the only recourse available to a karaoke manufacturer is trademark infringement.

HARRINGTON LAW: This is not accurate. ASCAP & BMI cover the underlying musical work, not the actual audiovisual work that is played.

TROY: I will contend that the audiovisual work that you are describing, LESS THE TRADEMARK/S, is in fact covered by ASCAP/BMI, and they will tell you the same thing. I also believe that any attorney on this earth, standing in defense of their client will make the same contention with success.

*******************************************************************

TROY: Whether you like it or not....karaoke manufacturers used, tricked, misled, and royally screwed the honest KJ's who faithfully purchased their music for many years. By this, I mean the way that they flooded the market with their music right before going "out of business" <---- ha ha

HARRINGTON LAW: I'm going to assume this is directed at CB. CB is out of business, no quotes needed. DT is a separate company with new management.

TROY: It is just as much directed at SC as it is CB.

When I got into this business, I spent a great deal of money on music. Using my finance & accounting background, part of the decision to go into business was the fact that my biggest asset/expense (the music) seemed to hold its value very well. My business plan included an exit strategy that reasoned if I ever decided to get out of the business, I would recoup most of the costs of my music.

The cost of music was a hurdle that most “would-be” karaoke jockeys would not be able to overcome. I was one of those “would-be” KJ’s for several years. It was not until I came into some money that I was finally able to create my own karaoke/DJ company. And that was part of my analysis when I was contemplating starting my own business. Who is my competition? How many songs do they have? How many songs do I need to be viable in the marketplace? How likely is it that I will encounter new competition? I reasoned that, because of the costs associated with karaoke music, it would be unlikely that I would face substantial competition from new and legal KJs.

I purchased SC’s Foundation and about 20 disks per system (in addition to other music) – paying over an average of $1 per song. Today, SC offers their GEM series at a fraction of that cost, and CB offers their own deals at a savings that is more substantial than SC. And both companies did this with the knowledge that they would essentially be going out of business. Furthermore, offering financing also enabled competition to enter the marketplace. As an example, CB offered “Guaranteed Interest-Free Financing”.

I used to scour craigslist and Ebay – looking for CDG collections. I traveled hundreds of miles on occasion to make purchases. I used to cherry pick what I didn’t have and sell off the remainders when I had accumulated a decent sized collection. Can’t do that anymore – my last 3 offerings on Ebay went unsold for so long that I eventually took way less than I would have gotten prior to the marketplace being flooded with music.
Looking at my own music collection based on my experience in dealing with used music, my collection will net me less than 20% of what I paid for it. This is a stark difference when compared to my initial analysis that concluded I would recoup over 50% of my costs, if I ever decided to liquidate.

*******************************************************************

TROY: Whether you like it or not....karaoke manufacturers used, tricked, misled, and royally screwed the honest KJ's who faithfully purchased their music for many years. By this, I mean the way they signed so many of us up for the fight against piracy only to find out that it was just a way for them to sell more of their music.

HARRINGTON LAW: What defines a pirate? Someone who has not paid for the music they are using. So I'm not sure what your complaint is. There is a long list of people we've put out of business instead of selling them music. What else would you have us do?

TROY: Our definitions of a pirate are the same. It is a fact that Chartbuster sought/seeks to first to SELL a suspected pirated music. I have the paperwork on file. And whether you agree with me or not, the terms of the settlement agreements that I have seen are very liberal. Look at it this way: I had access to very little money when I got started. I was working 5 nights a week for another company making $75 per show. Bars sought me out for their karaoke shows, and I knew that I needed to strike out on my own so I could make a decent living. With no access to the necessary capital, I would have jumped at the chance to own the GEM series under the terms currently available (if the price of music were still at a premium). Why? Because I was making $450 per week, and so were my equipment providers because we split revenue. That’s $23,500 per year per person. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, if I were to go out on my own, I’d be making about 50% more money each week for the first year while paying for the GEM series, but twice as much the second year and I would own the GEM series. PLUS, the “purchase” would have tax benefits. Instead of the settlement being punitive, it is actually enabling and will remain so as long as the music is offered as part of it.

I would rather you put them out of business. You claim that you have a long list of people that you have put out of business. I’ll bet that most of the ones you put out of business were done so as a result of default judgments. And of those, I bet that they were rinky-dink karaoke outfits. Probably not very good as KJs, probably had inferior equipment, probably not very good business people, maybe alcoholic, not very personable, etc. In other words, I bet you didn’t put very many GOOD KJs out of business.

I’d also recommend empowering rival legal KJs to sue these pirates on their own. If unfair competition by pirates applies to the manufacturers, it certainly applies to us as well. I have gone as far as asking to be named in a lawsuit- having also been damaged by unfair competition, but was turned down, in no uncertain terms. And why would that be? If you were really out to punish pirates and stifle piracy, you would not have a problem with including legal KJs in your lawsuits. But, this really isn’t about punishing anybody – other than making them pay twice as much for music and given generous payment terms.

_________________
I'm not a cheerleader, but I paid for my pom poms with my own money!

This is one of the best threads I have seen on this site!! Hopefully some of it is taken to heart.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

[quote"TroyVnd27"]
As long as the bar pays their ASCAP/BMI fees, they are covered.[/quote]

[quote"Harrington Law"]
For the underlying musical work, yes.
For the karaoke tracks, no.[/quote]

then what does the license cover?
[quote "from ASCAP Licensing Application"]
Enhancements to Recorded Music (Line 3). This fee applies for the use of added features to recorded music such as, but not limited to,
karaoke, DJs, emcees, dancing, shows, acts or games.[/quote]

[quote"from BMI page]2. Report promptly to BMI any changes in the way you use music. The amount of your licensing fee may be affected by factors such as charging admission, providing live music, or offering karaoke nights. BMI's license for eating and drinking establishments provides for changing music policy up to three times per year by phone. [/quote]

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

From what I was told by a BMI rep a couple years ago was that karaoke was completely covered under a club that pays their fees. However they did not specify that it did or didn't include lyrics - but was implied with 'completely'.

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

This is true as far as those rights that BMI represents are concerned.

ASCAP & BMI do not represent karaoke manufacturers, whose audiovisual works also have a public performance right.

And without a TM, the work becomes a LEGAL BACKUP of the COPYRIGHT, which I will be more than happy to test in COURT.

Without a trademark or any cognizable trade dress, you're probably right.

The manufacturer owns the audiovisual work, not just the sound recording. Once again, it's black-letter law. The license fees paid are for use of the underlying musical work, not for the audiovisual work itself.



I don't know what this means. It is entirely possible to have a "separate company" that is run by the same people as before (the "old management"). In this case, DT is a separate company that is NOT run by the same people as before, and is therefore under "new management."



SC's policy regarding media-shifting has been essentially the same for at least 15 years. There haven't been any "turns and changes and twists." There have been elaborations as new situations have required us to apply the policy. But the core policy has been the same for a long time.

According to the courts, a karaoke track is an audiovisual work. I disagree with the court's interpretation, and that has historically been the source of virtually all of SC's problems with publishers. In other words, it was not a lack of licensing per se, but a change in the publishers' position with regard to what a karaoke track is--an audiovisual work, requiring mechanical, lyric reprint, and synch licenses, as opposed to a sound recording (mechanical license) and lyric display (lyric reprint license).

If a karaoke track were ONLY a sound recording, there would be no public performance right in question.

But since karaoke tracks are AV works, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, too. AV works do carry a public performance right. So, while you can publicly perform the COPY YOU BUY--i.e., the original CD--you can't publicly perform the COPY YOU MAKE.



The licensee fees covered the discs already sold and "in queue."



It was a compromise of a disputed claim, nothing more, nothing less. Each side gave some and each side got some. You really should work harder to understand licensing, if you're going to engage in this discussions, by the way.



SC has the absolute statutory right to sell its sound recordings (without graphics) to whomever it pleases, paying only the royalty established by the Copyright Royalty Panel. That has been a feature of American copyright law for more than 100 years.

SC does not sell tracks out of Australia.



Because it's not like a driver license. When you get a driver license, you can then drive as many miles as you want. With copyright licenses, there are royalties paid on a per-unit basis, in addition to flat fees, and there may be minimums. In this situation, there was a resolution that ended the ongoing licenses.

I know you want desperately for SC to be the bad actor here, but you've been barking up the wrong tree for a long time. Not every commercial dispute is the result of one party acting in bad faith. Sometimes there is legitimate disagreement over contract terms and over laws. A lot of the time, those disagreements get resolved because the parties compromise.

The biggest problem I have with your way of thinking isn't that you're anti-SC. It's that you "know" things that are just not so. For example, you stated one time that SC had been sued for copyright infringement numerous times. When I pointed out that it was exactly one time, and invited you to examine PACER to verify it, we heard not a further word from you on that. Now you think there is something sinister about a commercial dispute between SC and the Eagles, which was resolved without a lawsuit and that resulted in 8125 being a legitimate item that is no longer sold. I don't particularly care what your "common sense" tells you, because it's apparent that for you, "common sense" means "uninformed judgment."

ONE? Added to together, these are for HUNDREDS of tracks. Any other stories you'd like tell because it's becoming increasingly difficult to assign any shred of credibility to your statements. I know that you enjoy portraying me as some frustrated, demented, anti-SC person.... but when you do this kind of stuff, you really damage your own credibility.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT:
2:02-cv-09377-RSWL-MAN Rondor Music Intl, et al v. Slep-Tone Ent Corp, et al
Ronald S.W. Lew, presiding
Margaret A. Nagle, referral
Date filed: 12/10/2002


COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT:
3:03-cv-00037 Zomba Enterprises, et al v. Slep-Tone Entertain
Todd J. Campbell, presiding
Date filed: 01/13/2003


COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT:
1:06-cv-03710-KMW Andrew Scott Music et al v. Slep-Tone Entertainment
Kimba M. Wood, presiding
Date filed: 05/16/2006

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT:
3:06-cv-00696 Famous Music, LLC et al v. Slep-Tone Entertainment
Thomas Wiseman, presiding
E. Clifton Knowles, referral
Date filed: 07/19/2006



sued 1 time is "once"
sued 2 times is "a couple"
sued 3 times is "a few"
sued 4 times or more is "numerous."

I will be gone for at least a couple weeks so you can continue to spin your yarns unhindered to the less knowledgeable.....

Mea culpa...I should have reviewed the post in question before referring to it.

Actually, what you said was that SC had been found liable for copyright infringement "numerous times." And that is what was false. I apologize for stating it otherwise.