G
Guest
Guest
c. staley said:However Joe,
Since the manufacturers sell to the 'general public' I believe it's pretty impossible for them to think that they can control the end use of their product.
Example:
#1. Customer buys a track online - with or withOUT graphics -
#2. Customer puts that track on a flashdrive or burns to a disc
#3. Customer takes that to a club and hands it to you to play.
Is this a violation?
The problem rests with the karaoke manufacturers themselves. Many (if not most) charged ahead with making their product and deliberately ignored the need for a synch license. (A synch license can only be granted with permission of the copyright holder.)
For those of you who don't know - a compulsary license (audio recordings only) is automatic; provided for in the Copyright Act. Once a work has been made public (published) you need only notify the copyright holder of your intentions and pay the nominal fees.
Let's tell the real story of the particular "ABKCO" case Chartbusterette likes to paint as some kind of Governemental mistake or gray area. It is no such folly.
There was never any gray area regarding karaoke works or the requirement to obtain a synch license. There was simply a failure on the part of CD+G maufacturers to respect the law or believe that it applied to them.
Pioneer (one of the original manufacturers of Laser Discs) knew enough to get synch licenses for their audio-visual product. Yet, many in the new CD+G camp ignored the Copyrigt Acts very clear distinctions between the audio recordings and the lyrical content rights. They simply proclaimed that CD+Gs were only "audio recordings" and pretended the digital visual content of the disc was somehow magically different (mere engineering technicalities) than the video content of a laser disc or other video generating source.
Many publishers represented artists who were not interested in seeing their songs released for karaoke (remember the infamous "missing" hits and artists?) and would not grant the separate license required to publish the lyrics either on screen or in print. So, a number of CD+G makers simply pretended they didn't need one.
The lyrics to a song have always been and always will be a separate Copyright which requires a separate license prior to publication. Publication includes not only print - but any visual display of the lyrics, including synchronized sing-a-long cues.
The decision Chartbusterette coveniently ignores in favor of her lament over "ABKCO vs Stellar et. al." is a much older case involving Disney and the use of lyrics on both printed inserts and as an on screen sing-along (follow the bouncing ball). This pre-karaoke era case reinforced the already obvious wording of the law and Congressional intentions about the separation of rights between audio and lyrics.
Now, the marketplace is full of product the manufacturers created at an artificially lower cost by ignoring the required synch licenses. Having been caught - they now face retroactively higher costs and previous liabilities which they are attempting to pluck from whatever ripe target they can find. Is it any wonder so many manus disappeared or that SC no longer creates new product?
Yes, indeed piracy has hurt the karaoke market and higher prices force pirates to leave the playing field. It's just really hard to tell who's who.