Directly from SBI President on Karaoke Downloads

[starzkj]

Joe,

Sometimes you get so busy arguing that you miss the point entirely.. Say that Zoom licensed a song and they created a Karaoke track. Leaving out all parts of the process, they put the track on CD, and in digital format as an MP4 video file or an MP3+g in zip format and you pick any other format. When I go to buy it, I pick the copy or format I want to buy.. I am not ripping it. They did... and they are selling me the ripped version. It comes to me as a downloaded data file and it is in the exact identical format that they put it into to sell it to me.. They do not send me a CD that I rip.. They ripped it. And that digital file has several means within it to make sure that all copies are identical. I have not altered anything.

In that way the downloaded file has more validity to the original then my ripping of a CDG, because I am using it in the exact form it came to me in and have shifted nothing. It is also greatly supported by the claim that we never own the music just the piece of plastic that gets it to us. So what difference should it make what means it reaches us, but in downloading it as an MP3 I am using it in the way I received it an have done no format shifting of any kind. MAKES MORE SENSE.

You and several others here have mentioned that checking out of print or business manus and CD's from non KIAA manus are outside the authority of KIAA or the manufacturers that make up KIAA. As a consumer it is not our responsibility to fix the business side of the equation. We buy a product in good faith and we use it in good faith. I have not read the download licensing documents, but I will try to find them and do so. However, I know they are paying royalties as well as my bars are paying ASCAP. Artists are being paid on both ends of the equation.. You could buy a Quick Hitz Cd here in the US that was never licensed, never authorized and no one is getting paid anything, and you think that is okay because it is on a pressed piece of plastic. Let me start at A and recount some things for you until it gets nauseating.. All Hits, Amerising, American Gold, Backstage, Best karaoke, Best of Karaoke, Big Apple, Big Hitz, CAVS, etc.. NONE of them paid licensing fees for Karaoke sync (as far as I am aware). but they are CD's so all is good.. Now that download track that did pay royalties and licensing fees is bad, because it does not have our holy plastic platter holding it. Please give me a break..

Maybe we should all go back to karaoke on vinyl and 8-tracks. oops that did not exist!! Cassettes were before Laser Disc (i have some).. Good luck running that show. Bring a file cabinet to carry your lyric sheets. Times change and unfortunately the US Codes and laws have been left vague so that people with real law degrees can take sides and be paid by people who disagree vehemently like we do.. Then it goes to court and half the judges can not agree and all of the judgments contradict one another. It's not gray area, it is the dark shadows with no light or guidance!

Also, the illustration you used to tell me someone was sued for downloading does not work. NAPSTER, you have to see that is not even apples and oranges, it apples and bowling balls. Paying for a downloaded track from a company that is paying royalties on that purchase is a far cry from illegal file sharing and grabbing all the files you can get your hands on for free. Once again, NAME one case where someone paid for a downloaded track from a legitimate seller that was definitely paying royalties and played in an establishment that was paying ASCAP and BMI and got sued or charges were filed. NAPSTER does not even come close to fitting. If you can not see that please step back and look at the bigger picture.

I sincerely hope this is taken in the light it is intended and Joe, you can get an attorney to agree just like I can and we both can spend thousands upon thousands and accomplish nothing. This is why I will not allow my discs to be marked in an audit.. Eventually the negativity and BS of this whole system is going to over-ride my love of music and singing and I will want to sell them. I envision more prospective buyers if my discs do not all have gauges in them...

Have a great night. I have to prepare for weekend gigs.

 

[Guest]

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

That does not preclude and end user (consumer) commercial or otherwise, from buying them in the UK and bringing or shipping them into the U.S.

They simply can not be imported for resale by the manufactuerer, his agents, or any third party distributor. The chaim of wholesale distribution must remain in the UK.

Is SC playing fast and loose about how it gets product into the USA? Probably. However, this a violation of a contract they have with the publishers - not a violation of any law that transcends as a liability to individual KJs.

You're point about a media shift no longer being the original product is mute. The law already recognizes it as an archive - end of story.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe,

Sometimes you get so busy arguing that you miss the point entirely.. Say that Zoom licensed a song and they created a Karaoke track. Leaving out all parts of the process, they put the track on CD, and in digital format as an MP4 video file or an MP3+g in zip format and you pick any other format. When I go to buy it, I pick the copy or format I want to buy.. I am not ripping it. They did... and they are selling me the ripped version. It comes to me as a downloaded data file and it is in the exact identical format that they put it into to sell it to me.. They do not send me a CD that I rip.. They ripped it. And that digital file has several means within it to make sure that all copies are identical. I have not altered anything.

In that way the downloaded file has more validity to the original then my ripping of a CDG, because I am using it in the exact form it came to me in and have shifted nothing. It is also greatly supported by the claim that we never own the music just the piece of plastic that gets it to us. So what difference should it make what means it reaches us, but in downloading it as an MP3 I am using it in the way I received it an have done no format shifting of any kind. MAKES MORE SENSE.

You and several others here have mentioned that checking out of print or business manus and CD's from non KIAA manus are outside the authority of KIAA or the manufacturers that make up KIAA. As a consumer it is not our responsibility to fix the business side of the equation. We buy a product in good faith and we use it in good faith. I have not read the download licensing documents, but I will try to find them and do so. However, I know they are paying royalties as well as my bars are paying ASCAP. Artists are being paid on both ends of the equation.. You could buy a Quick Hitz Cd here in the US that was never licensed, never authorized and no one is getting paid anything, and you think that is okay because it is on a pressed piece of plastic. Let me start at A and recount some things for you until it gets nauseating.. All Hits, Amerising, American Gold, Backstage, Best karaoke, Best of Karaoke, Big Apple, Big Hitz, CAVS, etc.. NONE of them paid licensing fees for Karaoke sync (as far as I am aware). but they are CD's so all is good.. Now that download track that did pay royalties and licensing fees is bad, because it does not have our holy plastic platter holding it. Please give me a break..

Maybe we should all go back to karaoke on vinyl and 8-tracks. oops that did not exist!! Cassettes were before Laser Disc (i have some).. Good luck running that show. Bring a file cabinet to carry your lyric sheets. Times change and unfortunately the US Codes and laws have been left vague so that people with real law degrees can take sides and be paid by people who disagree vehemently like we do.. Then it goes to court and half the judges can not agree and all of the judgments contradict one another. It's not gray area, it is the dark shadows with no light or guidance!

Also, the illustration you used to tell me someone was sued for downloading does not work. NAPSTER, you have to see that is not even apples and oranges, it apples and bowling balls. Paying for a downloaded track from a company that is paying royalties on that purchase is a far cry from illegal file sharing and grabbing all the files you can get your hands on for free. Once again, NAME one case where someone paid for a downloaded track from a legitimate seller that was definitely paying royalties and played in an establishment that was paying ASCAP and BMI and got sued or charges were filed. NAPSTER does not even come close to fitting. If you can not see that please step back and look at the bigger picture.

I sincerely hope this is taken in the light it is intended and Joe, you can get an attorney to agree just like I can and we both can spend thousands upon thousands and accomplish nothing. This is why I will not allow my discs to be marked in an audit.. Eventually the negativity and BS of this whole system is going to over-ride my love of music and singing and I will want to sell them. I envision more prospective buyers if my discs do not all have gauges in them...

Have a great night. I have to prepare for weekend gigs.

You either diidn't read my post, or didn't care. All good. No effect on me.

 

[Bazza]

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.

Which are two entirely different things and not really "proof" of anything.

 

[Chartbusterette]

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.

Here is the PRS License standing on UK Downloads:

[FONT=&quot]The territory is expressly limited and the user is especially limited.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Territory” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]means the UK and such other countries as[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the Licensors and the Licensee may agree in writing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“UK” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands and the Isle of[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Man.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“User” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]means a natural person in the Territory who[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]receives the Licensed Services for their own private and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]non-commercial use.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You can access this download information via www.prsformusic.com, and view the full rights and agreements of the license.[/FONT]

Just a FYI...

 

[dougpke]

OK, lets say I've just purchased a disk from Sunfly. Or Mr. Entertainer. Or Zoom. Or an SBI or SC custom disk from Clark Music in Australia. They have all gotten their cut for the manufacture of the disk. Lets assume that these companies were all good boys and girls, and the publisher has gotten their cut. It's just been shipped across the pond to little ole me. I stick it in my little cdr drive and transfer it to my hard drive as a bin file (or an mp3 if you don't care about audio loss). I play it at my show, where the bar has payed their BMI, ASCAP etc... licensing. Who in the hell is this omnibus figure that you are all worried about that is going to sue your **** off because they want a piece of the pie? I'm just sayin'..... :rolleyespill:

 

[KJSandman]

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

No James, they are not selling Top Hits Monthly. There is a site that seems to be selling tracks with no mfr's id or logo and that is buykaraokedownloads.com. Tricerasoft's management has posted on several forums with the same message as the UK based download sites. Tricerasoft is about as legit as any online distributor and they have been selling authorized MP3+G tracks for years.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

1) I posted that SC has no U.S. licensing, and that Kurt himself has posted the same. No U.S. licensing. What's the argument?

2) I posted that Ripping CD+Gs to MP3s alters the product. Two completely different types of files. What's the argument?

( BTW- the validity software used to copy MP3s is not exact, anyway. It works within parameters- not that it matters in terms of #2, because that would only cover the mfrs. end of the tranfer anyway.)

3) Since the files on a CD+G and MP3 files are two different things, only one can be the mfrs. original product, because the other is not the same. What's the argument?

4) Since the PC host is using an MP3 file, which is different from the original manufacturer's, he/she is using something that he/she made, not the mfr. Ergo, it belongs to him/her. What's the argument?

5) If the host is using that is of the host's own making, only the host can be held responsible for the licensing of that product. What's the argument?


BTW, In the many posts I have made in regard to this information, you may have noticed that no manufacturer has posted any disagreement.

You may also notice that all of the manufacturers' letters and e-mails posted throughout all of these debates and discussions only state their own willingness not to sue, and several have stated outright ( and honestly) that they are unable to do more than that. They don't speak of "legality", but only of what THEY are willing to allow.

 

[DannyGKaraoke]

Joe, Karaoke Version offers no discs but downloads only. Doesn't that make it an original product?

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe, Karaoke Version offers no discs but downloads only. Doesn't that make it an original product?

It would, but the transfer process negates it. Remember what I posted in regards to what it entails. Upload through a media ( Fiber optic, or , cable, or dial up, or wireless) that offers many variables, then download through media with the same variable, by an amateur, no QC, onto a consumer PC, not professional equipment. There WILL be some alteration, no matter how you slice it. No longer mfr. original. I understand that it SHOULD be the same, considering that they produce nothing but MP3s, but the problem is that there would be no way of proving it in court, because there is nothing to compare it to, and it HAS been transferred.

The only reason I speak of this is for the benefit of the KJ. You must understand that this is what every manufacturer loves, and wants you to do- whether they state it or not- because it absolves them of ANY legal or civil responsibility.

This is not a personal thing. Do as you please. I just think KJs should be aware of ALL the aspects of their business, which is tough enough, without taking unneccesary risks if they don't want to.

Hosts using altered ( non-original) product are using their own product, and are open to all the responsibility of any legal action. No one may EVER bother you about it, but the possibility DOES exist.

The thing is, storage has gotten so cheap, I'm surprised no PC host has considered copying discs directly to the HD. Though there may be SOME alteration, I would argue that this IS a direct backup, and should stand well in court.

 

[Singyoassoff]

It would, but the transfer process negates it. Remember what I posted in regards to what it entails. Upload through a media ( Fiber optic, or , cable, or dial up, or wireless) that offers many variables, then download through media with the same variable, by an amateur, no QC, onto a consumer PC, not professional equipment. There WILL be some alteration, no matter how you slice it. No longer mfr. original.

The only reason I speak of this is for the benefit of the KJ. You must understand that this is what every manufacturer loves, and wants you to do- whether they state it or not- because it absolves them of ANY legal or civil responsibility.

This is not a personal thing. Do as you please. I just think KJs should be aware of ALL the aspects of their business, which is tough enough, without taking unneccesary risks if they don't want to.

Just curious if you can cite to any authority, legal or otherwise, to back this up. I understand your premise, but I would like to look into it further. There are arguments on both sides of the media shifting/fair use argument, we've beat that dead horse to a pulp in here. It has yet to be tested in court as far as karaoke goes, but media shifting has been found legal in many other areas. If media shifting were found to be legal, (and it has yet to be found illegal, I believe the default rule in the good old USofA is most things are legal unless a law says otherwise) I don't see how using a 1-1 legally media shifted or legally downloaded file changes any legal aspect of that file. The "alteration" of the file is minuscule in most cases and hardly noticeable, if at all coming out of the speaker. CB/SC/PHM are all currently selling karaoke in MP3 format. CB, Sunfly & Zoom Are selling downloads direct from their websites.

Changing the key alters the end result (the sound coming from the speakers) a heck of a lot more that media shifting. I don't think anyone here would argue that changing the key of the song affects any rights one way or another.

I found this article interesting. It has probably been posted here before. If so I apologize in advance, If not, give it a read and tell me what you think.

http://www.imaginelaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1196173.html

 

[Guest]

I posted that Ripping CD+Gs to MP3s alters the product. Two completely different types of files. What's the argument?

The argument is that you don't seem to understand that a copyright or trademark violation does not occur unless and until the specific use produces actual commercial damage to the rights holder.

In the absence of any actual damages no statutory damages will awarded unless there is in place a specific prior contract between the partries or statutory prohibition on a specific action (very rare.) Media shifting produces no such damage to the rights holder, and has already been struck down as an actionable cause (thank you RIAA.) It does not matter if it's music, video, or karaoke - the legal principle is the same.

 

[rumbolt]

The argument is that you don't seem to understand that a copyright or trademark violation does not occur unless and until the specific use produces actual commercial damage to the rights holder.

In the absence of any actual damages no statutory damages will awarded unless there is in place a specific prior contract between the partries. Media shifting produces no such damage to the rights holder, and has already been struck down as an actionable cause (thank you RIAA.) It does not matter if it's music, video, or karaoke - the legal principle is the same.

The damage (lost revenue to the manu of the karaoke track was never originally purchased from an authorized reseller, therefore causing the manu to not have to chance to recoup the expense of the producing the disc) would occur when the track is performed in a venue. The venue would benefit financially as a result of the aforementioned action (whether the venue is making an actual profit or not, doesn't matter, just generating revenu).

BMI, ASCAP..... under their licensing (or whatever their fee is called) covers the lyric writer (as long as the lyric writer is an actual member of one of the orgs0. If not a member, the lyric writer is SOL and is being robbed (this part is a discussion for another tread and another day).

 

[Guest]

The thing is, storage has gotten so cheap, I'm surprised no PC host has considered copying discs directly to the HD. Though there may be SOME alteration, I would argue that this IS a direct backup, and should stand well in court.

Obviously you missed it but, that argument has already been through the court and the Congressional Committee on Copyrights. It does not matter what format you use to archive material they are all beyond the reach of what you suggest.

Joe, you walk into a club with discs and I walk in with a computer. The result is the same. No one's commercial rights have been expoilted. Media shift is not an actionable trademark or copyright claim. Without actual piracy there is no cause of action. The whole point of the audit is to search for evidence required to provide grounds for a search. Not much of a legal case -but, if you can coerce settlements and hawk re-run discs outside of court who needs a real case?

 

[Singyoassoff]

The damage (lost revenue to the manu of the karaoke track was never originally purchased from an authorized reseller, therefore causing the manu to not have to chance to recoup the expense of the producing the disc).

Not in the case of a true 1-1 format shift. THAT is what I am referring to.

 

[Guest]

The damage (lost revenue to the manu of the karaoke track was never originally purchased from an authorized reseller, therefore causing the manu to not have to chance to recoup the expense of the producing the disc) would occur when the track is performed in a venue. The venue would benefit financially as a result of the aforementioned action (whether the venue is making an actual profit or not, doesn't matter, just generating revenu).

BMI, ASCAP..... under their licensing (or whatever their fee is called) covers the lyric writer (as long as the lyric writer is an actual member of one of the orgs0. If not a member, the lyric writer is SOL and is being robbed (this part is a discussion for another tread and another day).

You have presumed facts not in evidence. (Piracy)
Media shifting is already legally remedied not an infringement.

You have been duped into believeing that without the specific word "karaoke" that certain existing law does not apply. This is a deliberate lie. Karaoke is fully contained within the definition of audio, video, audio-visual, and analog or digital recordings. It also falls under the umbrella of legal common sense.

There is no gray area - only people with gray intentions.

 

[Chartbusterette]

There WILL be some alteration, no matter how you slice it. No longer mfr. original.

If I understand your premise, once the original has been transcoded, it becomes a separate work, correct? Bit drift, psycho-acoustic dropouts due to MP3 compression, that sort of thing?

I think this is in error. Firstly, if it were so, publishers would be all over anyone who transcoded, for creating a "derivative work." It's hard to imagine they wouldn't take the opportunity to charge you again for a different format (and in fact that's been tried many times). Also, wouldn't this have been approached in the Betamax decision? You've got analog broadcast or cable transmissions, degraded by signal attenuation and whatnot, then recorded to video tape. Wouldn't that create the same sort of situation (though analog and not digital) that you are describing above?

Secondly, the courts have spoken specifically to altered versions that approach (or perhaps are indistinguishable or nearly so) the originals. That came down in the EMI v. BlueBeat summary judgment, where the court ruled that such changes don't constitute new works (which BlueBeat actually succeeded in copyrighting on their own).

You must understand that this is what every manufacturer loves, and wants you to do- whether they state it or not- because it absolves them of ANY legal or civil responsibility.

That seems very unlikely.

Hosts using altered ( non-original) product are using their own product, and are open to all the responsibility of any legal action. No one may EVER bother you about it, but the possibility DOES exist.

If that's true (and I don't think it is), then it's a creation of a derivative work. Since it's non-parody, non-fair use, commercial use, anyone transcoding works for hosting purposes would be directly liable for the creation of a derivative work. They would be liable not only to the karaoke manufacturer, but also to the publisher of the underlying creative work.

Further, if it were true, then the practice of naming a host in a lawsuit for observing tracks being played from a laptop is entirely justified, since it is clear evidence of the creation of a derivative work.

 

[Chartbusterette]

The argument is that you don't seem to understand that a copyright or trademark violation does not occur unless and until the specific use produces actual commercial damage to the rights holder.

I'd agree, but perhaps you should consider what might constitute "damage." Remember that there are consumer protection considerations as well. Further, bad rips can result in poor quality reproductions, and displays of trademark that accompany bad rips damages the holder's reputation.

In the absence of any actual damages no statutory damages will awarded unless there is in place a specific prior contract between the partries or statutory prohibition on a specific action (very rare.)

My understanding is that the plaintiff can choose to pursue either actual or statutory damages. Neither is predicated on the other. Since actual is extremely difficult to calculate, statutory is usually chosen.

 

[Bazza]

I posted that SC has no U.S. licensing, and that Kurt himself has posted the same. No U.S. licensing. What's the argument?

The argument is that you take the extra leap to say it is illegal for Kurt to market & sell his own product in the US because of this.

I posted that Ripping CD+Gs to MP3s alters the product. Two completely different types of files. What's the argument?

Since the files on a CD+G and MP3 files are two different things, only one can be the mfrs. original product, because the other is not the same. What's the argument?

The argument is that you are confusing the product with the delivery method. Coca-Cola is still Coca-Cola, whether in a can, bottle or out of a fountain.

Since the PC host is using an MP3 file, which is different from the original manufacturer's, he/she is using something that he/she made, not the mfr. Ergo, it belongs to him/her. What's the argument?

When you pour Coca-Cola from a can into a glass from your kitchen cabinet, the carbonation outgasses, it is diluted by ice and it changes from what it originally was from the manufacture. But it is still Coca-Cola, not some new product of your own creation.

 

[Guest]

The argument is that you take the extra leap to say it is illegal for Kurt to market & sell his own product in the US because of this.

The license to manufacture typically would also specify the authorized region of wholesale distribution. If his license to manufacture is the UK then it is unlikley he is authorized to import and distribute that product in the states.

Perhaps there is no easy legal remedy that would stop him from bringing it back in - but, I highly doubt this was the intent of the UK license he was granted. If SC is playing fast and loose with their license - I wonder if Kurt would stand equally by his plea for KJs to "drop a dime" on suspect activity?