What's new
By:
Filters

Fighting Back

DJ Dr. Drax said:
Ed,

No worries, it was just respect to the ID you had here.
Click to expand...

Drax,

It's cool. Long before I told everyone at my talk at MBLV who I was I'm not concerned with hiding who I am. The 'MusicMeister' name is what I use to moderate boards with... but I'm slowly trying to make sure my real name is in my signature. Guess I need to update here. ;)

And thanks... but none needed. :)

-Ed.

Now I just need to put together that $6500 to pack out my SC library.... :eek: :sqwink:
 
JCLAYDON WROTE: "Joe:it's not media shifting FOR THEM because they own the master files. What they can't do is PASS ON that right to OTHER people because it isn't specifically granted in their liscense.

Kurt already explained this, and you even agreed with him and apologized. "

THANK YOU!!!! Geez, how many times do I and others have to repeat things for you Joe? What is media shifting for you, might not be media shifting for Sound Choice. Just like a songwriter and/or their publisher(s) can approve or disapprove almost anything they like unless it's a straight mechanical use. Then the copyrights laws, which both protect them and the consumers (for some uses) override their rights. However, I have to negotiate with them for my requested uses. They have INHERENT rights that I don't have, just like I have inherent rights which you don't have.

Also, the copyrights in this country for a particular song are often different than the copyrights in another country. I can legally produce and sell an Eagles Disc in the UK, provided no more than 50% of the songs are from one WRITER. Since the Eagles had different songwiters among the bandmembers, an Eagles disc with a mix of songwriters can be made. Because Warner Publishing represents a part of the Eagles songs, AND they hold sway over many hundreds of our other songs, we chose not to piss them off "over there" so they don't withhhold some of our rights over here.
 
MusicMeisteer wrote "Now I just need to put together that $6500 to pack out my SC library.... "

Hey Ed, it won't cost you $6500 - that's just for those that we have to sue first to get their attention. For someone who wants to BUY our products first, the entire 7200 song MP3+G set will be about $4850! And we'll be giving discounts to KIAA and ADJA members that will probably cover a year's membership on larger purchases.
 
Sound Choice said:
MusicMeisteer wrote "Now I just need to put together that $6500 to pack out my SC library.... "

Hey Ed, it won't cost you $6500 - that's just for those that we have to sue first to get their attention. For someone who wants to BUY our products first, the entire 7200 song MP3+G set will be about $4850! And we'll be giving discounts to KIAA and ADJA members that will probably cover a year's membership on larger purchases.
Click to expand...

That's still a nice chunk of change... ;)

But I'm working on it... it's just hard to justify when I haven't done karaoke in a bar in quite some time.
 
jokerswild said:
I'll give ya #1 sortof... I didn't mean they in good faith produced and distributed what they assumed would be licensed I ment that they had license under what was current copyright laws based on tape cassette audio distribution and when the laws changed and defined the CDG and Video Disc as similar to a movie requiring sync rights that's when they lost the rights to distribute the music... the Eagles disc was a different story... they had permission as I understand from the publishers... but, it was the band that yanked the rights.... SC stoped distributing as soon as it was apparent they were not legally allowed to.

But that second point is completely off..... if SC has obtained rights to distribute some of their music as mp3+g then it's neither piracy nor format shifting.

It's not piracy because they have the rights to distribute in this manor....

It's not format shifting because transfering it to a PC when the format is already in mp3+g does not constitute a shift in format... just a shift in where it's stored and accessed from.
Click to expand...

Okay, I guess I have to give you #2 sort of... I had momentarily forgotten that the plan was to distribute MP+3 on DISCS. My error, and I apologize for it. However, a question arises in my mind. Will the music that is to be licensed be master produced in MP3 format? If not, won't SC be media shifting to make the discs? In other words, will the master recording be in MP3?

Come to think of it, who will be supplying a sync license as a software file?
 
Sound Choice said:
JCLAYDON WROTE: "Joe:it's not media shifting FOR THEM because they own the master files. What they can't do is PASS ON that right to OTHER people because it isn't specifically granted in their liscense.

Kurt already explained this, and you even agreed with him and apologized. "

THANK YOU!!!! Geez, how many times do I and others have to repeat things for you Joe? What is media shifting for you, might not be media shifting for Sound Choice. Just like a songwriter and/or their publisher(s) can approve or disapprove almost anything they like unless it's a straight mechanical use. Then the copyrights laws, which both protect them and the consumers (for some uses) override their rights. However, I have to negotiate with them for my requested uses. They have INHERENT rights that I don't have, just like I have inherent rights which you don't have.

Also, the copyrights in this country for a particular song are often different than the copyrights in another country. I can legally produce and sell an Eagles Disc in the UK, provided no more than 50% of the songs are from one WRITER. Since the Eagles had different songwiters among the bandmembers, an Eagles disc with a mix of songwriters can be made. Because Warner Publishing represents a part of the Eagles songs, AND they hold sway over many hundreds of our other songs, we chose not to piss them off "over there" so they don't withhhold some of our rights over here.
Click to expand...

JoeChartreuse said:
Okay, I guess I have to give you #2 sort of... I had momentarily forgotten that the plan was to distribute MP+3 on DISCS. My error, and I apologize for it. However, a question arises in my mind. Will the music that is to be licensed be master produced in MP3 format? If not, won't SC be media shifting to make the discs? In other words, will the master recording be in MP3?

Come to think of it, who will be supplying a sync license as a software file?
Click to expand...

Joe see Kurt's post above....
 
MusicMeister said:
And here is a fundamental failing of this, and most copyright/licensing threads. People talk about this stuff but they don't understand it.

1) I'll clarify based on the discussions I've had with various people. While it might not be 100% accurate, the information has come from reputable sources, so I believe it to be fairly accurate and certainly 'good enough' for our discussions. When a song is selected for production by a karaoke company they contact the copyright owner (or someone acting on their behalf) for permission. Because these negotiations can take a long time they often strike an initial 'gentleman's agreement' for licenses. So let's take the case of the SC8125 disc. SC contacts the label and strikes a gentleman's agreement while the legal departments are hashing it out. SC goes to the studio and lays down the tracks - and then syncs the lyrics - and starts manufacturing the run of discs based on the 'gentleman's agreement'. Along the way, one of the people who is an owner/part-owner of the copyright on those songs (usually one of the songwriter's) steps in and says - 'Hell no. I'm not releasing my stuff as karaoke!'. Meanwhile SC has printed discs, and then sent them out - only to get this final 'No'. They can't 'recall' the discs that were already sold to private individuals so they pull existing stock, destroy them, take a loss, and work to make an arrangement for copyright on the discs that were sold.

In other words, the initial agreement fell through for some reason. They fully expected those licenses to get approved - only they didn't.


The statement above is completely true. I never said SC INTENDED to distribute without license, only that they did distribute them that way. The problem here is that "Standard Operating Procedure" does not equal legality, and a "Gentlemen's Agreement" is not legally binding. Again, I'm not calling names here. I'm merely explaining why the unlicensed tracks would give them a problem in court in regard to their current suits.

2) If Sound Choice gets permission to distribute over MP3 then it's perfectly legal.

Space shifting is done by someone that has no rights to distribute the work. Meaning a consumer. Mechanical licensing allows for distribution in a variety of formats, with the various formats carrying different inherent costs. But mechanical licensing, sync licensing, master use, etc are purchased by someone distributing the works - ie, Sound Choice.

That's kinda the crux of the problem. It's all good as far as the mechanical for the music, but gets a bit jammed up with with the SYNC license for the lyrics swipes as SOFTWARE files- and I admit that I haven't finished my research on this point. To be continued...





3) Joe,

Have you tried talking with Kurt? Based on our brief discussions they're not pulling names from a hat. They have reason to file suit in those cities and during their investigations I'm sure they check out all the shows they can. I'm sure part of the problem is that not all investigators are going to understand A/V equipment well enough to never make a mistake.

As far as the "investigations"- even if this were true, your own words say that if there are investigators, they are woefully unprepared for the job- and causing problems for people who don't deserve them. A fully authorized and empowered government agency, using properly TRAINED INVESTIGATORS and having no business agenda is what's needed to keep the innocent free of hassles. Our court system is based on the premise that it's better that 10 guilty go free than to punish one innocent unjustly. A government agency would have to follow rules of evidence. They also would not attempt to have a suspect sign an incriminating document while in the process of only auditing.

I agree that I should attempt to call Kurt in the near future. Not only do I want to get a sense of the man, but I also wish to make clear that none of this is personal. It's all about methodology. He may be the nicest guy in the world aside from this debate.



As I posted above, this is actually SOP in the industry.
See #1

And again... you post without understanding.
Nah, you misunderstood what I posted..- as apparently did Dr. Drax.:sqbiggrin::sqwink:

Please people... do your home work before posting...
This I agree with, no matter which side of a debate you are on. Also, get info first hand. If one doesn't, one ends up in a game of "Telephone" with "facts" changing as they travel from person to person.
Click to expand...

See answers in bold type- Steve made me do it this way! :sqeek::sqlaugh:
 
DJ Dr. Drax said:
1) Joe, What your posting is simply flat out wrong. Just like the arguments you made that wireless mics in the 696-806 microphones would always be legal. Lest there be any doubt. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/wirelessmicrophones/ you were and are wrong, either by not wanting to believe those that actually knew the situation or you just wanted to hope you wouldn't be wrong.

I wasn't wrong when I originally posted, a new law was enacted, and now that post becomes incorrect. I would have thought that the new law would have never made it through. Hey, no one elected me God. That being said, what the heck does that have to do with the SC situation? Are you saying that I must be wrong about this because I have been wrong before in my lifetime??

1) Space shifting is NOT A GREY AREA at all. It is completely illegal to break the mechanical license. The reason that there isn't a ton of prosecution on it falls on two plates. One, to make a lawsuit viable they have to show damages. If you own an original & make one space shifted copy where is their economic damages when they are not providing a way to legally obtain it on the new medium. The space shifting is classified as a diminuetive offfense, meaning that there is little value to prosecution. Two the DMCA allows for software to be backed up. The jury is still out as to if music is software.

See my previous post to MM. It's the Sync license as software that I'm worried about, not the above- and I stated that I am still researching it.. Therefore, there is no "wrong" because I have yet to make a concrete statement- and won't without the facts.


Your tossing around statements as if they are true, calling SC a pirate or only being Semi Legal when of all the Karaoke companies,

Please re-read my posts. I never called anyone anything. I ASKED if one were to do as described, wouldn't that be piracy as well? See below from my post:

"Again, MP3s of karaoke tracks are still not legal in the U.S. no combo Music/Mechanical/Sync licence exists. IF SC produces karaoke tracks in MP3s- and admits it- they are admitting to piracy- how's that strike ya? Remember, even Kurt admits that they have no license to media shift." Where did I CALL anyone anything- I ASKED, or at worst presented a supposition.




they produce the best quality tracks,

Really? One would think that would be kind of subjective- and I disagree. You have somewhat of a legendary name in the DJ world ( I assume you are THAT Dr. Drax)- and well deserved. However, in the decades in that I have been in my business- that of a Karaoke Host- I have found it a bit less well known there. I'm afraid that I will have to continue choosing ( or allowing my singers to choose) "best" versions...



I have done my homework, I have read all the data presented regarding those issues. Have you? Yup.

 I regularly talk with mgmt at the labels as well as the Fox agency. They actually started contacting me back in the Napster days. it has led to a good relationship being formed.

Please become better informed on the actual laws governing these issues.

Ditto. I would also suggest getting a better idea of the style of posting done here. Negative personalizations are kind of frowned upon...:sqcool:
Click to expand...


See above for replies in bold print.
 
jclaydon said:
Joe:it's not media shifting FOR THEM because they own the master files. What they can't do is PASS ON that right to OTHER people because it isn't specifically granted in their liscense.

Kurt already explained this, and you even agreed with him and apologized.
Click to expand...


I agreed and apologized if that is the case, that's a fact, and will apologize again if I find out that sync licenses for use in software files are in possession. The fact is, the sync question only came up for me recently in a discussion with a software writer friend of mine who is also somewhat of a recording artist.

For the third time, I freely admit that at this point I do not have all the facts in regard to this issue, and am still researching it....I do not have all of the facts yet.
 
Sound Choice said:
JCLAYDON WROTE: "Joe:it's not media shifting FOR THEM because they own the master files. What they can't do is PASS ON that right to OTHER people because it isn't specifically granted in their liscense.

Kurt already explained this, and you even agreed with him and apologized. "

THANK YOU!!!! Geez, how many times do I and others have to repeat things for you Joe? What is media shifting for you, might not be media shifting for Sound Choice. Just like a songwriter and/or their publisher(s) can approve or disapprove almost anything they like unless it's a straight mechanical use. Then the copyrights laws, which both protect them and the consumers (for some uses) override their rights. However, I have to negotiate with them for my requested uses. They have INHERENT rights that I don't have, just like I have inherent rights which you don't have.

Also, the copyrights in this country for a particular song are often different than the copyrights in another country. I can legally produce and sell an Eagles Disc in the UK, provided no more than 50% of the songs are from one WRITER. Since the Eagles had different songwiters among the bandmembers, an Eagles disc with a mix of songwriters can be made. Because Warner Publishing represents a part of the Eagles songs, AND they hold sway over many hundreds of our other songs, we chose not to piss them off "over there" so they don't withhhold some of our rights over here.
Click to expand...


OK, since you're here: Do you have synch licensing for software use? That's what I'm asking- not the mechanical.

I have another question- and I'm not being a wise guy- I truly don't know the answer: Who issues such a license?
 
jokerswild said:
Joe see Kurt's post above....
Click to expand...

Rob, though informative, it's in regard to media shifting music. I'm talking about something completely different- A sync (lyric swipe) license, AND it's use as software in an MP3 produced track.

Remember - and as Kurt has agreed with me :sqeek:- this is the reason that downloads are not legal for use by U.S. based hosts.

Our licensing is different than that of say, the UK, and the sync is one of the things stinking up the works- it's not included with the mechanical, and must be gained seperately.

The part I DON'T know about is if there are added problems due to use as software - the dual music/graphic MP3 file.. Thoughts or info on this point greatly appreciated.
 
JoeChartreuse said:
Rob, though informative, it's in regard to media shifting music. I'm talking about something completely different- A sync (lyric swipe) license, AND it's use as software in an MP3 produced track.

Remember - and as Kurt has agreed with me :sqeek:- this is the reason that downloads are not legal for use by U.S. based hosts.

Our licensing is different than that of say, the UK, and the sync is one of the things stinking up the works- it's not included with the mechanical, and must be gained seperately.

The part I DON'T know about is if there are added problems due to use as software - the dual music/graphic MP3 file.. Thoughts or info on this point greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that the graphics contained on a CDG disc are actually software too..... it takes a computer embeded in a CDG player to decode the software for display..... all things considered equal I don't see any difference, further I don't think the license holder's will see it as different either, but I could be wrong.
 
jokerswild said:
It could be argued that the graphics contained on a CDG disc are actually software too..... it takes a computer embeded in a CDG player to decode the software for display..... all things considered equal I don't see any difference, further I don't think the license holder's will see it as different either, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...


You may well be right about the graphics- and probably are, I just don't know. However, there IS a distinct difference between the mechanical and sync license- two different things. Gotta keep lookin'......:sqwink:
 
JoeChartreuse said:
You may well be right about the graphics- and probably are, I just don't know. However, there IS a distinct difference between the mechanical and sync license- two different things. Gotta keep lookin'......:sqwink:
Click to expand...

Well ya.....

Mechanical is just the license to reproduce the music to disc (or whatever media it will be distributed on)

Sync has to do with the lyric graphics to be sync'd to the music.....

Both would still come into play with mp3+g and cdg it's just a difference in the type of file stored on the disc and yes they are both files no more musical than a fart without a device to decode the programing.
 
Joe,

The problem remains in that you don't understand licensing/copyright - and it's causing a lot of confusion.

The gentleman's agreements, etc that I pointed to earlier has nothing to do with their court cases. The problem is a good faith agreement they made fell through. When that happens they pay - dearly - for that mistake. In other words, it's a civil issue, not criminal.

How SC goes about obtaining the licenses has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Neither does the small number of times that the licensing falls through - It's a completely different topic altogether.

Let's try an example:
Ok... SC has licenses to put 'What a Wonderful World' on a CD, including a sync license for the lyrics on the CD. They most certainly can distribute the music files in ANY format and pay only mechanical licensing (which they do (or did) on eMusic and a couple other sources). But they can't distribute the lyrics (CDG files) electronically because of the nature of the sync licensing and the limitations on their current agreements.

By saying that they can't - it means that they can't under their existing agreements.

They have to go back to the copyright owner, and renegotiate to allow them to distribute the sync in another format.

By saying it's not legal - he means - no one has obtained those types of licensing in the US YET. Not that it will never be legal - only that no one has legalized it YET.


--------------------------------------------------------------
As for the investigation and what I've seen thus far, there have been cases where an innocent person was accused. But I've yet to see where an innocent person was convicted. In every case where someone was accused and further investigation reveals they're innocent they dropped the case. This happens in both civil and criminal suits on occasion. It's a function of the legal system. Bringing the charges and accusing someone has NOTHING to do with guilt or innocence. The investigation they've done has them believing that their trademark has been infringed. While the case goes forward, they do further investigation. That additional investigation could prove guilt or innocence. And if they are innocent the charges are dropped. That's how the legal system works.

Someone is accused of a crime. The investigation continues and a case is built. If their innocence is proven then they are released and the charges dropped. That's how the system works.

The problem isn't that the investigators are clueless or anything else - only that they made a mistake about what was being used for karaoke and other similar issues. I'm specifically referring to the case on the SCsucks site video. In other words, short of walking up to your booth, looking at the cabling and everything hooked up, how it's hooked up, and what is actually on the device, etc - it could be hard to tell when a piece of equipment is or isn't being used. For example, if you had a CAVS HD system being used to play 'bumper' music - how is the investigator to know you're not doing karaoke from it?

They would have to sit and watch an entire show, staring into the booth - and even then, they wouldn't be sure.

Please, please, please... just send an email to Kurt. He's just trying to get people legal and provide a great product. I talked with a record executive about using their tracks in my DJ business (during my terms of use investigation) and here's what he told me:

"Buy the tracks legally. Don't share them. Pay performance licensing and we're happy."

What Kurt wants isn't that far removed from this. He wants people to buy the tracks legally so he can continue to provide a great product. He's finally gotten to the point where he has to do something about it.
 
Ok, here's the deal: We could go on for another 200 + plenty pages of ugly, but it would come to naught.

I repeat myself thusly:

I predicted that those who used PCs in public shows would cause an influx of cheaply equipped wannabes.

I predicted that conversion to MP3 would massively increase the piracy level due to no costs for duplication or distribution.

In both cases I was ignored, or laughed at, or called names, or behind the times.

Well, in both cases I was right. The result of which is that now all of you are desperate to solve the problems of piracy and over-abundant competition (fair or unfair) that YOU caused yourselves.

My next 'Karaoke Nostradamus" prediction:

In this desperation, you have lined up behind a methodology that not only unethically causes problems for the innocent as well as the guilty, but will (and already HAS) ultimately cause venues to re-think whether or not they wish to deal with this sort of thing. The result of which will be either venues cancelling karaoke, or not bringing it in at all. If they can be profitable in any other way that causes no ripples in the smooth running their businesses, they will.

Ron White said it best.....:sqcool::sqwink:

Enjoy.

Hey Steve, how about you and I go for a beer? :sqbiggrin:

Catch the rest of you on the other threads...I need a break...:sqerr:
 
So as not to start a new thread, I post this here without regard to (without reading or paying attention to anything posted since my last comment.

This note arrived with my recent purchase of a disc from SC. After receiving this note, this will surely be the last disc that I ever purchase from them!

"Copying this disc or any Sound Choice song to a hard drive for commercial use without the proper permission or making multiple copies from a sing disc or file constitutes willful infringement which may incur statutory damages of not less than $750 per song. Call 1-800-788-4487 to speak to a Customer Service Representative about getting a discounted rate on our entire library so you business is in compliance.

There's a lot I could say to denigrate the statement shown in black type face, but there's even more derogatory that can be said about Sound Choices solution, show in red type face, to the supposed problem(s) they have raised.

PS: Now that I have made this notation, I am leaving the internet to rip my newly acquired disc to my hard drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
ericlater said:
So as not to start a new thread, I post this here without regard to (without reading or paying attention to anything posted since my last comment.

This note arrived with my recent purchase of a disc from SC. After receiving this note, this will surely be the last disc that I ever purchase from them!

"Copying this disc or any Sound Choice song to a hard drive for commercial use without the proper permission or making multiple copies from a sing disc or file constitutes willful infringement which may incur statutory damages of not less than $750 per song. Call 1-800-788-4487 to speak to a Customer Service Representative about getting a discounted rate on our entire library so you business is in compliance.

There's a lot I could say to denigrate the statement shown in black type face, but there's even more derogatory that can be said about Sound Choices solution, show in red type face, to the supposed problem(s) they have raised.

PS: Now that I have made this notation, I am leaving the internet to rip my newly acquired disc to my hard drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry YOU have a problem with THEIR product. If you don't like the conditions of the use of THEIR product then don't buy it.

They're just trying to protect THEIR product from rampant piracy. They've only made their product available on discs - others found ways to convert that to another format. They've tried to stop it through a variety of means and people complained time and time again.

This is a problem THEY are trying to solve that WE (as an industry) have created. If you have a problem with that... then I recommend you think back to this poster from years ago...


I have seen the enemy... and he... is us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top