What's new
By:
Filters

Directly from SBI President on Karaoke Downloads

starzkj

starzkj

Established Talker
PF Member
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Points
62
Hey guys,

With that all that is going on and being discussed, I sent email to SBI (as my favorite company to download tracks) asking thier position on using download tracks at shows.

Here is the response directly from their President, Jim Woodford,



Hi Eric


You are quite right that we cannot and never attempt to or imply to speak on behalf of the publishers. It is also impossible for us to comment on laws and licensing agreements in territories outside our own.

But I do clarify again that SBI will NOT take action against KJ's or other parties using our tracks at karaoke shows, provided of course the tracks were obtained legitimately.

Please do not hesitate to get back to me if you need anything more

best regards


JIM WOODFORD
Group President SBI GLOBAL GROUP
 
They never did anything tht would lead me to believe that they WOULD take action.

The thing is, while a karaoke producer may tell you that THEY won't bother you, they have no authority to write law. So far ( though I hear rumors of change in the offing), the U.S. has drafted no license of any sort to use downloads in a U.S. based show. Many other countries, like the UK, have done so- but not here.

Using downloads in a U.S. based show is not legal. However, neither the publishers nor agencies of the U.S. courts have shown much interest in enforcement- YET. That could change rather quickly now, though, with the publishers financial difficulties growing.
 
Downloaded tracks out of the UK are about $3.00 each.. The royalty paid to MCPS is about 12%. I have no idea what of that gets passed back to the artists, but it is pretty much the same as a CD sale. If the bar is paying ASCAP and BMI then the artists are getting paid on both ends.

You are correct that there is no law that says they are legal to use. There is also no law that says it is illegal to use. There is also no law that says it is legal to use Karaoke CD's in a public venue, there is also no law that exists in the US that mentions the word Karaoke.

If I am incorrect on any of this, please publish a link that shows me where that law is.. Almost everything we do is total gray area.

The argument given at the KIAA presentation was it violates the Terms and Conditions. My response, you mean like the Terms and conditions printed on my Karaoke CD that says not for Public performance. Now, that horse has been beat to death, but the point is that if it was legally obtained and the bar is paying ASCAP and BMI then it is fair game to play;

just like the Karaoke CD, or track manufacturers do not have the right to tell you that it can be played in public.
SBI says they have no problem with you using it at a show, just like Sound Choice says they did not mean you could not use it at a show when they put their terms on the CD.

KIAA can not sue you for the track as they are a 3rd party with no interests involved in the case. I paid for it and the company I paid says they have no problem allowing me to use it. Now, if the artist or label wants to come after you on this, then that is a whole separate issue. However they accepted the royalty for my purchase.. HMMMM...
 
One more point:

When you buy a CD you are buying the plastic, not the music. You do not own it.. You have paid for the right to play it. Technology has made the medium obsolete. Now with less of a cost factor you can have the same "right " to play the song, but no CD involved.
 
"Using downloads in a U.S. based show is not legal."

Joe, please refer to the statute, any statute, any state, district or jurisdiction that outlaws (makes not legal) or prohibits or bans the use of downloaded karaoke tracks for use by karaoke professionals.

I need this information. I haven't been able to locate it on my own.

The U.S. based (incorporated or manufacturing here) karaoke mfr's will agree with you. They see foreign produced karaoke as competition, plain and simple. They are aware of and resentful that imports do not have to meet the same requirements as home-grown. They ARE going to attempt to dissuade U.S. KJ's from purchasing and using those products.

Tricerasoft has made statements as to their position as a source of karaoke downloads. Now SBI has done the same. It seems that their take on it has to possess some form of credibility. These are viable, ongoing businesses that are right out there in the open, with easily locatable and accountable management/owners.

I am trying to remain objective, considering that the more resources for legitimate karaoke I have, the better for my business.
 
FYI,

I have old copies of responses from ZOOM and Sunfly that were on the Tricerasoft Users board years ago. I just sent out new requests to both ZOOM and Sunfly to get their positions as well. If you say I can not use because it violates the terms and conditions, then I am getting it directly from the horse's mouth as to whether that was the intent of the terms or not.

Looking from another perspective: If it is licensed through the same program the GEM series was licensed and that license was written prior to July 1 2010, then it is just as legal as my GEM series is!
 
You guys missed 2 points:

One, posted elswhere, we agree on, sort of. When it comes to involvement of the publishers/owners of the music, even original disc based hosts may run into problems- we may even get hit witha Cease and Desist. However, most of the legal responsibilities of those problems will lay squarely on the shoulders of the karaoke producer, because I am using their original product. A PC based host, whether download or ripped disc, is using an altered product ( for instance, when you rip a standard CD+G disc to MP3, you are deleting a LOT of audio information from the file. Download transmition itself alters the files too. I could give other examples if requested.) not the manufacturers' product. Who's product is it? YOURS, and YOU bear ALL responsibility for it's use and licensing.

2) There's something that any math major or logician can tell you- it is impossible to prove a negative. However, even you agree that no license has been issued for U.S. based karaoke shows- if there has, no one has been able to find it for use in other debates- ( as there has been in other countries), and that licensing is required in the U.S. for almost all public use of music.

Licensing is required in the U.S. for use in shows, production, etc.. As our system stands, a blanket license would require the cooperation of a whole bunch of people who all want a piece of the pie. Not having the proper licensing is actionable both legally and civilly. No such licensing has ever been drafted.
Licensing required + no licensing available= A show run illegally, and certainly open to civil litigation as well. Since the product in use is not original mfr., the KJ is responsible for his/her own product.

What most don't understand is that the original manufacturers LOVE it when you download or rip, because it takes the responsibility completely off of their shoulders. Not their product, not their problem. Of COURSE they will tell you that all is fine and dandy with them. The KJ is helping them limit THEIR exposure to liability.

All a matter of how much exposure you want to deal with. You may never get prosecuted or sued- again, simply because no one seems interested right now- but part of running a company is limiting exposure to liability.
 
Not to argue whether there is or isn't a license but what kind of damages would a publisher claim if the product had been paid for and they had been piad their royalties?
 
Again, Joe, it is simply because there is no license or licensing agency for karaoke that your "sky is falling" line of thought doesn't hold water. The rights-holders, be they writers, composers, publisher etc., don't have a precedent or even a law in place for violation by the legitimate act of usage of their publicly available and properly paid for product. Specifically, karaoke.

You pronounce your opinion and give your examples of your business acumen, but doesn't it seem at odds with logic to make decisions based on the worst case scenario?

You seem to imply that simple "fair use" is enough to make you a target and you relate that it hasn't happened yet. You suggest that major action is pending and inevitable but my experience has shown that even if this were to be true, a legitimate KJ would have nothing to fear. I paid for every track in my library. The publisher's would have nothing to gain by attempting to sue me. I have a business to run. I don't see it as constructive to worry about this.

"Can't prove a negative" cuts both ways. Limiting a liability that hasn't proven itself to be a liability? And to paraphrase Possumdog: Damages? What damages?
 
starzkj said:
Downloaded tracks out of the UK are about $3.00 each..
Click to expand...

The only UK download sight I use is Karaoke.cc (Direct from Zoom & Sunfly). They sell a 200 credit pack for 200 pounds, which translates to roughly $320, or about $1.60 per song.

Not trying to be nit-picky here, just pointing this out. And thanks for your posts on this, I have been looking for this information as well, I am awaiting a response to a post I made on the PCDJ download site on the same subject.

http://message.pcdj.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=17415
 
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap6.html#602

I have CPed this portion so that you won't have to search for it!

§ 602. Infringing importation or exportation of copies or phonorecords4
(a) Infringing Importation or Exportation.—

(1) Importation.—Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501.section 501.

(2) Importation or exportation of infringing items.—Importation into the United States or exportation from the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords, the making of which either constituted an infringement of copyright, or which would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under sections 501 and 506.

There are exceptions but they are very well defined, and there are several other sections including those on traqdemark that should make a pirate stop and think!
§ 602. Infringing importation or exportation of copies or phonorecords - U.S. Copyright Office - C
www.copyright.gov
U.S. Copyright Office is an office of public record for copyright registration and deposit of copyright material.

links provided...Just sayin untill I have something in writting from US manus or a CLEAR law allowing for overseas manus downloads/discs use here I'm not taking the chance...not that I would not want to have those resourses available to me....lots of songs I'd love to buy
 
How is a Zoom disc, or a Zoom download direct from the manu's website any different than a SC disc compiled and produced by mediaplas? That would include many of the discs SC is now selling from their US based website and the entire gem series. Or any of the custom sc cdgs from Australia for that matter.
 
KjAthena said:
Just sayin untill I have something in writing from US manus or a CLEAR law allowing for overseas manus downloads/discs use here I'm not taking the chance...not that I would not want to have those resourses available to me....lots of songs I'd love to buy
Click to expand...

Seriously? What do you think the U.S. manufacturers will tell you? Anything to get you to buy their products, period.
 
c. staley said:
Seriously? What do you think the U.S. manufacturers will tell you? Anything to get you to buy their products, period.
Click to expand...

Okay, so are we bashing SC and calling them illegal for importing their CDs on one thread yet accusing US manufacturers of making it up that there is a ban on imports on another?
 
possumdog said:
Okay, so are we bashing SC and calling them illegal for importing their CDs on one thread yet accusing US manufacturers of making it up that there is a ban on imports on another?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm simply saying that if Athena is relying on what a "manufacturer" will say is legal to use, it will be whatever serves their purpose... which is to sell product.
 
JoeChartreuse said:
You guys missed 2 points:

One, posted elswhere, we agree on, sort of. When it comes to involvement of the publishers/owners of the music, even original disc based hosts may run into problems- we may even get hit witha Cease and Desist. However, most of the legal responsibilities of those problems will lay squarely on the shoulders of the karaoke producer, because I am using their original product. A PC based host, whether download or ripped disc, is using an altered product ( for instance, when you rip a standard CD+G disc to MP3, you are deleting a LOT of audio information from the file. Download transmition itself alters the files too. I could give other examples if requested.) not the manufacturers' product. Who's product is it? YOURS, and YOU bear ALL responsibility for it's use and licensing.

2) There's something that any math major or logician can tell you- it is impossible to prove a negative. However, even you agree that no license has been issued for U.S. based karaoke shows- if there has, no one has been able to find it for use in other debates- ( as there has been in other countries), and that licensing is required in the U.S. for almost all public use of music.

Licensing is required in the U.S. for use in shows, production, etc.. As our system stands, a blanket license would require the cooperstion of a whole bunch of people who all want a piece of the pie. Not having the proper licensing is actionable both legally and civilly. No such licensing has ever been drafted.
Licensing required + no licensing available= A show run illegally, and certainly open to civil litigation as well. Since the product in use is not original mfr., the KJ is responsible for his/her own product.

What most don't understand is that the original manufacturers LOVE it when you download or rip, because it takes the responsibility completely off of their shoulders. Not their product, not their problem. Of COURSE they will tell you tht all is fine and dandy with them. The KJ is helping them limit THEIR exposure to liability.

All a matter of how much exposure you want to deal with. You may never get prosecuted or sued- again, simply because no one seems interested right now- but part of running a company is limiting exposure to liability.
Click to expand...

Joe, the license for public use or public performance is ASCAP and BMI developed by the music industry to compensate composers. Specifically addresses DJ / KJ versus live performance. If they are paying it that is the only license that exists and anyone would be hard pressed to file a claim against anyone.

As far as logic... paid for product, paid for public performance, provide receipts, logically, you are OK.

on other point, digital copies are far more accurate than analog. Download sequences verify data bit by bit on the file. Once again, point out the law that covers this like Athena attempted to do. Separate post.
 
§ 602. Infringing importation or exportation of copies or phonorecords4
(a) Infringing Importation or Exportation.—

(1) Importation.—Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501.section 501.

(2) Importation or exportation of infringing items.—Importation into the United States or exportation from the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords, the making of which either constituted an infringement of copyright, or which would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under sections 501 and 506.

[/url]
[/QUOTE]

Show case law of how this has ever been applied to a digital download that was paid for. This was written for illegally smuggled tapes or records for sale or distribution.. Many things are gray area, but the part that reads "have been acquired outside the United States" is not gray area at all. It was paid for and acquired right here in the USA and case would now be dismissed. 1. Licensed by distributor (whom this law was written for - in case of illegal distributor), royalty collected and paid to proper agencies, downloaded and used at show paying ASCAP or BMI.

It took them 5 years to actually file against the Daniel Stern guy. He collected over $675,000 in illegal payments, made up identities of people that did not exist, never paid a dime in taxes and sold somewhere in the neighborhood of 675 million tracks violating copyright law as plain as day. He is still walking outside of jail and has not had "official" charges pressed. The guy who was in Minnesota who was selling hard drives, burnt discs, etc several years ago, Sonny Freeman was his name.. Based on what I have been told he never served any time.

They are absolute thieves who have brought our industry to it's knees. And we are worrying over using in my case say 1000 tracks that we actually paid for from a known retailer and played in a venue that is paying ASCAP and BMI. PLEASE BE REAL!!!

Oh one last thing.. The whole sync license thing came from Stellar vs ABCO. That is the reason that they can not use mechanical licensing to authorize karaoke. It requires a negotiated contract which requires approval of the artist involved as Karaoke tracks were deemed to fall under the Motion Picture section copyright law and not the phonograph section... Thus the phonograph rules do not apply until a court rules in that direction again. IT is one or the other, can not have it both ways!
 
Thank you Eric for your reply...gives me some things to think about.
 
Singyoassoff said:
The only UK download sight I use is Karaoke.cc (Direct from Zoom & Sunfly). They sell a 200 credit pack for 200 pounds, which translates to roughly $320, or about $1.60 per song.

Not trying to be nit-picky here, just pointing this out. And thanks for your posts on this, I have been looking for this information as well, I am awaiting a response to a post I made on the PCDJ download site on the same subject.

http://message.pcdj.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=17415
Click to expand...

OK, I buy them one track at a time as needed. Price right now is UK£ 2.00 = 3.2312 US$ (today's exchange rate). Buy 3 at a time at that rate,

Was going to get sarcastic here, but that is how I get in trouble.. Insert your own sarcastic comment about arguing with anything just for the sake of getting to argue!
 
possumdog said:
Not to argue whether there is or isn't a license but what kind of damages would a publisher claim if the product had been paid for and they had been piad their royalties?
Click to expand...


Good question, but not accurate.

1) as far as being paid for: If you are using original discs in your show, the responsibility is on the manufacturer's shoulders. If you are using altered ( ripped or downloaded files) then the respnsibility is on YOUR shoulders, because they are YOUR product, not the manufacturer's

2) As far as royalties: It seems few, if any, karaoke producers paid for licensing in the U.S., and therefore no royalties have been paid. Even if licensed, the so-called artists organizations are constantly being sued, because THEY aren't passing on the money that they collect to the artists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top