Directly from SBI President on Karaoke Downloads

[JoeChartreuse]

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.

Zoom DISCS don't differ at all- no U.S. licensing. But again, if you are disc based, the responsibility is on the mfr.- if you download or rip, they are altered, not manufacturer's product, and your problem.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

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?

Believe it or not, NOT ME. Just saying that both are equally unlicensed. The difference is that:

1) SC actually has the nerve to demand a licensing fee for product that they have no right to produce or sell here, and on top of that, some KJ's actually think that this is OK.

2) SC is using "Trademark Infringement" as a hook to try and intimidate KJs into settlements in hopes of selling their overstocked GEM sets, though their logo is illegally attached- and therefore legally invisible in U.S. courts- to music tracks.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

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.

Sorry, but NO on two counts:

1) DJ performances, and KJ shows where lyrics are displayed in sync to the music are two completely different things.

2) Digital copies more accurate than analogue? I'm an EE and ET, and this is COMPLETELY wrong.:

Most complete audio range: Vinyl records

Cleanest sound: CD's

High end audio tapes have more audio range than a CD, Less clean than a CD.

.WAV files aren't bad, but lose a little of everything.

MP3 files are audio junk files. They were designed for quick transfer over what was a slow media, for storage on what was very expensive storage at the time. Single layer linear files- their original purpose was sampling only. If one liked the track, they would buy the real thing. They were never designed to be a music source. Conversion to MP3 deletes a large portion of audio info, especially range and depth,which is why about 15% of the genpop- including me- can't stand listening to them. ( This is the main reason that I'm disc based- nothing to do with the current crap). Kind of funny in a way- My midrange hearing isn't all that great. Those who hear the difference have, like me, exceptional hearing in the high or low ranges.

MP3s are NOWHERE near accurate in comparison to analogue, or even the digital multilayer files on a CD.

Don't believe it? Take a .BIN file, convert it to MP3, and check content. Or, if you wish to be more scientific, put a track from the disc on an scope, then an MP3, where you will see the lack of range, random compressions and keychanges, dropouts, etc. This will prove that whether you hear the difference or not, large alterations have been made to the original manufacturer's product.

If you convert, you are altering the manufacturer's product, and making it you own- and your responsibility.

It may be arguable that if you copied the original files- without converting to MP3 or .Wav- to your PC that it is then just a backup- I don't know. However, once you ALTER the mfrs. product, it can no longer be their responsibility, because it is different than the product that they sold.

 

[starzkj]

Just received from ZOOM -
Hi Eric,

Thanks for your enquiry.

We don't have a problem with anyone using our tracks in a commercial environment at all. That includes KJs and professional singers who are paid for their work. Provided, of course, that the tracks have been purchased from a legitimate source. That includes Selectatrack.

We will definitely not sue any KJ or singer who uses our tracks in a commercial environment if they purchased the tracks from Selectatrack.

As you stated, I cannot speak for the music publishers/record companies and their rights. I'm only talking about our rights in terms of our backing tracks and our on screen graphics.

Kind Regards,

Joe
Zoom Karaoke

 

[starzkj]

Joe,

I disagree on so many levels I can not even go there.

2 things that I will address is

1. Karaoke vs. DJ in bars in reference to ASCAP and BMI. Laws are interpreted by courts. Legal precedents are set by those judgments. There have been several judgments involving ASCAP and BMI suing bars over Karaoke performances and requiring ASCAP and BMI licenses. That pretty clearly sets the precedent that ASCAP and BMI cover the venue in regards to Karaoke performances. ( you are correct in that once again the docs I have found still fail to mention Karaoke - other than court rulings)

2. There is nothing in the law that keeps Sound Choice or any other company from displaying their trademark on a CDG or Karaoke track. If that is the case about 98% of all Karaoke tracks are illegal and sections 5.1 to 5.5 of the MCPS Agreement go into detail as to rules and regulations of how and what and changes to how the trade mark may be displayed. https://www.prsformusic.com/SiteColl...%2007%2010.pdf

Speaking of legal judgments and precedents, there are millions of downloads daily in today's world. Please cite 1 case anywhere, any jurisdiction, any level of law civil or criminal where someone paid for a download and then was sued, fined, etc for either commercial or public performance (where ASCAP and BMI were paid) for altering the file or not having rights to the file. NAME JUST ONE!

 

[starzkj]

2) Digital copies more accurate than anologue? I'm an EE and ET, and this is COMPLETELY wrong.:

Most complete audio range: Vinyl records

Cleanest sound: CD's

High end audio tapes have more audio range than a CD, Less clean than a CD.

.WAV files aren't bad, but lose a little of everything.

MP3 files are audio junk files. They were designed for quick transfer over what was a slow media, for storage on what was very expensive storage at the time. Single layer linear files- their original purpose was sampling only. If one liked the track, they would buy the real thing. They were never designed to be a music source. Conversion to MP3 deletes a large portion of audio info, especially range and depth,which is why about 15% of the genpop- including me- can't stand listening to them. ( This is the main reason that I'm disc based- nothing to do with the current crap). Kind of funny in a way- My midrange hearing isn't all that great. Those who hear the difference have, like me, exceptional hearing in the high or low ranges.

MP3s are NOWHERE near accurate in comparison to analogue, or even the digital multilayer files on a CD.

Don't believe it? Take a .BIN file, convert it to MP3, and check content. Or, if you wish to be more scientific, put a track from the disc on an scope, then an MP3, where you will see the lack of range, random compressions and keychanges, dropouts, etc. This will prove that whether you hear the difference or not, large alterations have been made to the original manufacturer's product.

If you convert, you are altering the manufacturer's product, and making it you own- and your responsibility.

It may be arguable that if you copied the original files- without converting to MP3 or .Wav- to your PC that it is then just a backup- I don't know. However, once you ALTER the mfrs. product, it can no longer be their responsibility, because it is different than the product that they sold.

Joe,

You are a sound engineer. I have a background in Sound Engineering, but I also hold many computer certifications.

On the sound side I agree with you for the most part, but this conversation is about downloading of MP3+g or other electronic versions of Karaoke tracks. The file manipulations and alterations you discuss would apply to the ripping of a CDG and all your examples work in that instance, however we are talking about clicking on a link and buying the version that was created of the MP3+g. BIN, MP4, etc file. These are digital files already and they are nothing but a series of code. When you download that the end result is exactly the same and your computer validates it as part of the process.

In that light, a downloaded file that was prepared by the manufacture in that format is actually more true to the product you purchased ( since you purchased a digital downloaded file) then the file you might have if you bought the CD and then ripped it to MP3+G. In a download you bought an already prepared digital file and it has not been altered in any way from the version that you paid for.

 

[c. staley]

Joe,

1. Karaoke vs. DJ in bars in reference to ASCAP and BMI. Laws are interpreted by courts. Legal precedents are set by those judgments. There have been several judgments involving ASCAP and BMI suing bars over Karaoke performances and requiring ASCAP and BMI licenses. That pretty clearly sets the precedent that ASCAP and BMI cover the venue in regards to Karaoke performances. ( you are correct in that once again the docs I have found still fail to mention Karaoke - other than court rulings)

That's because ASCAP and BMI licensing don't include (and don't have to include) anything that has to do with lyric display or synchronization which sets it apart from a DJ. A venue is licensing the "musical work" and not anything else. In this sense, their licensing is really no different than a DJ because it doesn't matter if you sing to it or not, or display the lyrics or not.

2. There is nothing in the law that keeps Sound Choice or any other company from displaying their trademark on a CDG or Karaoke track. If that is the case about 98% of all Karaoke tracks are illegal and sections 5.1 to 5.5 of the MCPS Agreement go into detail as to rules and regulations of how and what and changes to how the trade mark may be displayed. https://www.prsformusic.com/SiteColl...%2007%2010.pdf

Please note that ZOOM does NOT "display a trademark" on their karaoke tracks. Only the name and web address. This is not an accident.

 

[Bazza]

product that they have no right to produce or sell here

Please, show us your proof that SC has "no right to produce or sell" their own products in the USA.

MP3 files are audio junk files. They were designed for quick transfer over what was a slow media, for storage on what was very expensive storage at the time. Single layer linear files- their original purpose was sampling only. If one liked the track, they would buy the real thing. They were never designed to be a music source. Conversion to MP3 deletes a large portion of audio info, especially range and depth,which is why about 15% of the genpop- including me- can't stand listening to them. ( This is the main reason that I'm disc based- nothing to do with the current crap). Kind of funny in a way- My midrange hearing isn't all that great. Those who hear the difference have, like me, exceptional hearing in the high or low ranges.

This old mis-information and invented statistics again? Joe, as I have shown you many times your information is decades old. The MP3 files of 1994 cannot be compared to the MP3 files of today. MP3 Codecs have evolved substantially in 17 years.

 

[Guest]

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.

Joe.

This is the one area upon which you are totally out to lunch.

Karaoke producers have no standing on the use of a track in a public performance if the publisher of that track from which the work is derived is a member of; and the venue a client of the appropriate performing rights agency.

It does not matter where the track came from. Your notion that a dowloaded track can not be used in a public venue is dead wrong.

Publisher's are already compensated by client venues performing karaoke versions of their songs.

The version and source is a non-issue for the publisher even if the track was never licensed for karaoke production. In the case of tracks never licensed for karaoke production their only action is against the manufacturers and distributors of the unlicensed materials - and we have already seen them take such action against CB and SC.

The SC trademark claim is so mired in duplicity dependency on facts not in evidence that it's probably no longer a serous threat to anyone with the resources to press them into court.

The SC demand of 1:1 will not be legally sustainable in the long run since there are inumerable ways in which a KJ can legally retain a SC track even after a physical disc has expired or been discarded. The legal right of a purchaser to archive material which has not been resold or transferred supercedes any need to retain an original. There is no such 1:1 concept in the law - it is an artificial construct not legally required to satisfy Copyright or Trademark.

 

[Guest]

BTW:

The legal definition of "musical works" as interpreted with respect to ASCAP and BMI includes ALL of the following"

1. Recorded music (DJs)
2. Live music (Bands)
3. Background music systems
4. Subcription Music services
4. Music videos and VJs
5. Recorded or Live karaoke
6. Braodcast Programs

The trademark or "fingerprint:" attahced to the delivery vehicle does not matter.

Also, the "MP" in MP3 comes from "Motion Picture."

The original purpose of the compression behind the evolution of MP3's was to adapt high quality audio for use in the motion picture industry and film score production.

People who claim they can tell the difference between MP3's and the uncompressed digital audio can always be proven wrong in a properly conducted A/B test. Most people can't even tell the difference between a properly recorded and calibrated cassette tape and a CD.

 

[possumdog]

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 missed the point. You are stuck on the technicality and not on what the actual damages would be. If you paid for a track, as long as you weren't using several copies of it at once, what is the monetary loss to the publisher?

Also, a track legally produced in the UK will have paid the publishers for the right to use that track. It may have been under different rules but they were still paid. True, the track is only licensed for the UK but I have yet to find where it says we can't import and use a track that was produced legally in the UK. I asked for clarification from their licensing organization and they have replied that any bans must be on the US end. We are still emailing back and forth on that one.

I don't know if your last sentence is referring to artists suing ASCAP for performance royalties or artists suing publishers for not paying them. I was referring to the publishers having been paid for the right to use a song.

 

[possumdog]

Please note that ZOOM does NOT "display a trademark" on their karaoke tracks. Only the name and web address. This is not an accident.

Yet SBI and Sunfly, both UK producers, display trademarks on their opening screens. Do they not know their own law or are we misinterpreting it?

 

[starzkj]

And now Sunfly has responded to me again:
Hi Eric,

Thank you for your email. Yes we are happy for KJs to use our tracks for their karaoke nights; as long as they have been purchased legally, and as long as the venue has the appropriate public performance and live entertainment licenses for your country.

Best,

Coco Thaddeus
Media Manager
Sunfly Music Group Ltd

M +44 (0)7956 034 239
W +44 (0)208 450 5544
F +44 (0)208 450 6969

www.sunflykaraoke.com
www.singsunfly.com

3 for 3 on UK downloads. None of them have a problem with commercial use and and none of them will pursue a KJ for using a downloaded track. You paid them, they paid the royalty as prescribed by their agreement, artist was paid, you use the track at a bar that is paying ASCAP and BMI. ARTIST IS COMPENSATED AND UNLESS THEY REFUSED THE ROYALTY CHECK, they agreed to the transactions.

A 3rd party telling you that you can not play the track is BS. The technology to block downloads by IP address absolutely exists. US IP addresses are unique. If they are putting them up for sale in the US and allowing them to be sold that is an industry problem, not our problem.

 

[jclaydon]

"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.

I have no idea if Tricerasoft is still selling tracks of Top Hits Monthly, but those tracks belong to Stellar and Tony Walstra has told me personally thru email that these tracks were never liscense to be sold digitally AT ALL..

-James

 

[Guest]

JoeChartreuse[/B]]
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

Even if that were true and it mattered (it doesn't) no court is going to award statutory damages on such a technicality where no actual damages exist.

Secondly, despite the venue being a commercial application - the music itself is almost always the personal property of the KJ (not the venue and rarely a multi-op) and therefore they retain the same ownership rights as any consumer.

The rights of the owner are distinct from those of the venue. It is the venue who is the commercial user - not the KJ.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe,

I disagree on so many levels I can not even go there.

2 things that I will address is

1. Karaoke vs. DJ in bars in reference to ASCAP and BMI. Laws are interpreted by courts. Legal precedents are set by those judgments. There have been several judgments involving ASCAP and BMI suing bars over Karaoke performances and requiring ASCAP and BMI licenses. That pretty clearly sets the precedent that ASCAP and BMI cover the venue in regards to Karaoke performances. ( you are correct in that once again the docs I have found still fail to mention Karaoke - other than court rulings)

2. There is nothing in the law that keeps Sound Choice or any other company from displaying their trademark on a CDG or Karaoke track. If that is the case about 98% of all Karaoke tracks are illegal and sections 5.1 to 5.5 of the MCPS Agreement go into detail as to rules and regulations of how and what and changes to how the trade mark may be displayed. https://www.prsformusic.com/SiteColl...%2007%2010.pdf

3) Speaking of legal judgments and precedents, there are millions of downloads daily in today's world. Please cite 1 case anywhere, any jurisdiction, any level of law civil or criminal where someone paid for a download and then was sued, fined, etc for either commercial or public performance (where ASCAP and BMI were paid) for altering the file or not having rights to the file. NAME JUST ONE!

1) Correct as stated, but that's not what we were talking about.

2) I never said they can't put it there, but if the publishers wish to sue them for doing so, they can, they will, they have, and they won, though the wins were based on copyright infringement. What I have said, and continue to say, is that if the Logo is not attached legally ( in other words, if the track is unlicensed) then the mfr. cannot win a Trademark Infringement case. The court will not recognize the logo as being a legal addition to the graphics.


3) As previously stated several times, there has yet to be publisher/owner involvement with in regard to individual KJs/DJs. , though Napster, if you recall, certainly got nailed back before they got permission to do so- but that was a civil suit.

Also as previously stated several times, I don't know if the Publishers/Owners will ever get involved. What I said was that due to a lack of legal licensing, U.S. based KJs/DJs are taking a risk, because they will be open to legal difficulties if the P/O DO get involved.

Not prosecuted does not equal legal.


In regard to Zoom, not only would any karaoke company that sells downloads have no reason to sue, Zoom is based in the UK, and meets ALL legal licensing there, as far as I know. They also don't have any way to sue here, since they sell downloads on the internet. Download based UK hosts are completely legal- there.

More importantly, you never addressed the fact that the tracks in your PC are YOURS- not the manufacturers' product- and that YOU are completely responsible in regard to any licensing for those tracks. So, even if the mfr. is fully licensed, once the files are altered and transferred, it's not their problem. Media shifting itself may be a gray area, but responsibility for altered product is not.

If you buy a timing light, and make a stun gun out of it, it is not the original manufacturer who is responsible for it's use. You altered it, and it's all yours.

 

[c. staley]

Also, a track legally produced in the UK will have paid the publishers for the right to use that track. It may have been under different rules but they were still paid. True, the track is only licensed for the UK but I have yet to find where it says we can't import and use a track that was produced legally in the UK.

Machine guns are legal to carry in Pakistan too.. doesn't mean they're legal to carry here even if they are American made.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe,

1) You are a sound engineer. I have a background in Sound Engineering, but I also hold many computer certifications.

On the sound side I agree with you for the most part, but this conversation is about downloading of MP3+g or other electronic versions of Karaoke tracks. The file manipulations and alterations you discuss would apply to the ripping of a CDG and all your examples work in that instance, however we are talking about clicking on a link and buying the version that was created of the MP3+g. BIN, MP4, etc file. These are digital files already and they are nothing but a series of code. When you download that the end result is exactly the same and your computer validates it as part of the process.

In that light, a downloaded file that was prepared by the manufacture in that format is actually more true to the product you purchased ( since you purchased a digital downloaded file) then the file you might have if you bought the CD and then ripped it to MP3+G. In a download you bought an already prepared digital file and it has not been altered in any way from the version that you paid for.

1) Incorrect, and I don't know why you made that assumption. I said that I have an EE and ET, which apply to ALL areas of electronics. As a matter of fact, my specialty is video imaging, and I am a co-inventer of the AIM ( Automatic Interlace Module) circuit. Originally used in medical imaging, it is now what is used to allow older TV shows and movies to appear to be Hi-Def on HD TVs and Blu-Ray, even though they aren't.

2) First, not my examples at all. I said that I don't like to listen to MP3s, and that I am disc based- I don't rip them to MP3 files.

A) I showed you how you can prove that conversion to MP3 permanantly deletes a lot audio information. Try doing it or not, but this is not arguable, it just is. This even happens when converting .WAV to MP3. Whether someone believes it or not isn't going to change that.


B) When a mfr. like SC produces and MP3 from their music source, it is probably as accurate as an MP3 can be- but still a degradation of the original disc.

However, pretending that it isn't for a sec: Most end users are amateurs, not trained engineers of any sort. They are downloading at whatever rate they choose, any way they choose, on to consumer equipment, not professional recording devices. Also, that download was transmitted over whatever media was available ( Wireless carrier, Fiber optic, cable, dial-up, whatever) and is subject to the vaguaries of those systems. Also, the receiving PC is in varying environments. Did you know that if you wind a crank flashlight within, say, 10 feet of a PC, the EMPs produced will affect transmitions, as well as the computer itself, for example?

If you work on the ground floor near a window, and someone walks by using power equipment such as a lawnmower or leaf blower, the same is true.


In other words, it is, for all intents and purposes impossible to avoid SOME alteration during transfer, and that even assuming that whoever did the upload did a perfect job, ( though the upload media is just as subject to errors as the download media is). Once altered in any way, it is no longer the manufacturer's original product.

 

[possumdog]

Machine guns are legal to carry in Pakistan too.. doesn't mean they're legal to carry here even if they are American made.

The point is not that the track is licensed only for UK use--they admit that it is only licensed for UK use. The point is that the publisher got paid so what are the damages? I prefaced my post with, "Legalities aside."

 

[JoeChartreuse]

1) Please, show us your proof that SC has "no right to produce or sell" their own products in the USA.

1) They are unlicensed here, per Kurt Slep, CEO of Sound Choice. They are only licensed in the UK, for manufacturing purposes.