Mantis1 said:
Meister, I've heard many times it IS legal to format shift IF you get WRITTEN permission from EVERY owner of EVERY track. That does not mean Sound Choice. They don't own the track they use it by permission. You said you got some permissions? But before that you said there was no way. Just wanted to clarify for every one here.
Actually getting permissions for even 100 songs would prob be impossible unless pre negotiated by someone like SC on the KJ's behalf
Ok... to clarify.
The terms of use for iTunes and other online sources prohibit your use of the tracks for commercial use without written permission. It is THIS permission that I was able to get in writing to bypass the Terms of Use for an online service.
Again, most people don't understand the difference between copyright, terms of use, etc.
As for space shifting, it requires multiple things - and the hardest to get is a master use license to affix a performance to a new medium. That requires a process that is so incredible time intensive and cost intensive that it's not even remotely feasible.
A quick run down.
For any given song, there are initially 2 copyrights in effect - one for the music and one for the lyrics.
When you publicly perform a piece of music who's author has died less than 75 years ago (current US copyright law requires allows the copyrights to stand for 75 years after an author's death) you are required to pay for a performance license which is typically acquired through ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. In the case of religious works, it's typically found through CCLI.
If you record a song someone else has written with the intend of distributing it - you are required to pay the mechanical licensing purchased through the Harry Fox Agency. This is a statutory rate (set by Congress) and at a minimum it will set you back about $50 per track because of the minimums. A 10 song track will cost you $500 - or about $1 per disc (IIRC, it's a 500 copy minimum you pay for - even if it's only 10 discs you're making).
Technically, if a karaoke track didn't have any lyrics then they could use mechanical licensing. But to affix the lyrics to the track requires what is called a synchronization license. This is only available through the copyright owner directly - and not only are they not typically cheap- what often is permitted is sometimes denied later after the company has already put the recordings have happened and major costs incurred (this is the case of the SC8125 disc for example).
Now comes the sticky part...
If you purchase a CD you have multiple things. You have a song, lyrics, and a performance by an artist. Even if the SONG AND LYRICS are in the public domain, the performance of that song is NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. This has come to bite people who use classical recordings for 'on hold' music thinking that the works are in the public domain, and while they might be, the PERFORMANCE IS NOT. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC have hit people up for licenses when they've used modern performances of public domain works.
You are required to get a master use license to affix that song to a new media. The Rio decision allows for PERSONAL use to be space shifted (or as I prefer, format-shifted/media-shifted) but specifically DENIES space shifting for commercial purposes.
Keep in mind what I have posted here only begins to scratch the surface of intellectual property and copyright law. Most lawyers can't tell the difference unless they work in this field and most DJ's don't even begin to have a clue.
FYI - Violation of a terms of use isn't criminal. It's civil. Copyright/trademark infringement 'could' be criminal though Sound Choice (if I understand this correctly) is filing civil suits.
Again, I am NOT a lawyer, I'm just better read up on this stuff than most. And I CANNOT EXPRESS THIS ENOUGH!!!! IF YOU ARE BEING SUED, GET A LAWYER THAT SPECIALIZES IN THIS STUFF!!!!! THE AVERAGE LAWYER IS CLUELESS!!!! MY POST IS NOT MEANT TO BE LEGAL ADVICE!!!