LoudKaraoke.com sued by publisher

[c. staley]

Here is the insinuation I was referring to. Completely unnecessary. (IMO)

I am not arguing with you. I don't possess the legal expertise to understand exactly what the complaint states. That is why I posted questions and conjecture.

I still don't see any insinuation and wouldn't it simply have been easier for Chartbusterette to explain the licensing question right off the bat?

It's still being ignored isn't it because I certainly don't see an above board "clarifying answer" to it, do you?

 

[Chartbusterette]

Calm down, please.

And just HOW are we supposed to know if the tracks are "unlikely to be licensed"? ... there is no real way to know for sure.

Exactly. You have to make a determination based on the information you've been able to gather from whatever sources you have at your disposal. You don't have the liberty of claiming to be an end-user and purchasing in good faith, as you are part of a commercial enterprise. This requires as much due diligence as you are able and willing to put forth.

You will likely weigh such effort based on your assessment of the risks involved, with higher risk justifying greater effort. It's entirely your call as the operator of the business. We just want you to be aware of the level of risk, as much as possible.

The only way I would have ever known is because of these boards, and even then, it's not exactly a legally reliable source, is it?

The board itself is not a source at all, but rather a place where sources gather. You will have to determine the verity of any claims made for yourself, and base them on your own opinion of the posters, their sources, and external reports.

What about the KJ's that don't or can't access the boards? How are they supposed to know?

One would hope that they have developed their own methods of knowing what is going on in their own industry. The legal process has ruled again and again that ignorance is no excuse for infringing activity.

Do you seriously expect us to go searching through all kinds of legal paperwork and investigate every track on those discs?

We don't expect you (or any KJ) to do anything. What the law requires is that you operate your business within the framework of existing law.

The general public is not subject to that same kind of scrutiny when they purchase music CDs so why should we be?

Because you are not the general public, you are the operator of a business.

As for speculating, I am reserving judgment until more information comes through, but it would be nice if you helped us to clarify this statement:

That question would be best directed to the authors of the statement. We can't and won't attempt to interpret it for you. We do caution you to read the entire document very carefully. There are nuances there that aren't immediately apparent.

BTW did you license your discs to be sold in Wal-Mart in Canada?

We have.

 

[Diafel]

Calm down, please.

Exactly. You have to make a determination based on the information you've been able to gather from whatever sources you have at your disposal. You don't have the liberty of claiming to be an end-user and purchasing in good faith, as you are part of a commercial enterprise. This requires as much due diligence as you are able and willing to put forth.

You will likely weigh such effort based on your assessment of the risks involved, with higher risk justifying greater effort. It's entirely your call as the operator of the business. We just want you to be aware of the level of risk, as much as possible.



The board itself is not a source at all, but rather a place where sources gather. You will have to determine the verity of any claims made for yourself, and base them on your own opinion of the posters, their sources, and external reports.



One would hope that they have developed their own methods of knowing what is going on in their own industry. The legal process has ruled again and again that ignorance is no excuse for infringing activity.




We don't expect you (or any KJ) to do anything. What the law requires is that you operate your business within the framework of existing law.

So in other words, there is NO WAY for anyone to know for sure. I would doubt that any judge would find you guilty of something if there is NO WAY to know.
Plaintiff: "Your honor the defendant has bought unlicensed music from a retail outlet and infringed on my rights"
Judge: "Was there ANY way for the defendant to find out that the music was unlicensed prior to this complaint coming before the court?"
Plaintiff: "No your honor, There is no way at all for him to be able to tell, but he should just KNOW from the hundreds of thousands of songs out there which ones are unlicensed. The law says he can't purchase and play unlicensed tracks and it's up to him to know which ones they are, even if there is no source to find out".

Seriously??? You expect that this would fly??
It wouldn't last five minutes in court.
So good luck with that.

Because you are not the general public, you are the operator of a business.

My bad choice of words. Let me rephrase that.

Disc Jockeys are not subject to that same kind of scrutiny when they purchase music CDs so why should we be?

 

[Chartbusterette]

Calm down, please.

So in other words, there is NO WAY for anyone to know for sure. I would doubt that any judge would find you guilty of something if there is NO WAY to know.

Knowing "for sure" and having reservations are two different things. We are advocating that you weigh your risks versus the effort required. Some KJs will choose to operate their businesses to minimize the doubt, and some won't.

If you are truly certain that a judge and/or jury would not hold you responsible for knowing if you were operating your business legally or not, then that is a determination you must make on your own. We wish you luck with that defense. Every action brought is different, and you may have some success.

Disc Jockeys are not subject to that same kind of scrutiny when they purchase music CDs so why should we be?

I have no knowledge of the ways in which DJs are scrutinized, or not, and so I can't speak to that.

We are sure you already know that running a business is hard work. If we are pointing out that it's harder to be a KJ than you expected or are accustomed to, then we apologize for bearing such bad news. The law requires what it requires, however.

 

[c. staley]

Chartbusterette is simply playing games at this point....

She claims she want to be partners with the KJ's and even recruit them to help chartbuster in their search for unlawful discs however, but when she posts the link and is asked about it, she provides nothing but cryptic messages that are as far from "clarity" as you can possibly get...

I have the 8-ball game too... turn it over and it will say; " Ask again later. "

 

[Diafel]

Calm down, please.

I have no knowledge of the ways in which DJs are scrutinized, or not, and so I can't speak to that.

We are sure you already know that running a business is hard work. If we are pointing out that it's harder to be a KJ than you expected or are accustomed to, then we apologize for bearing such bad news. The law requires what it requires, however.

I know how Djs are scrutinized. My hubby is one and has been for years. They go and purchase their music in the same way that we do through retail stores, second hand and online. They are NOT required to know whether something is licensed or not. Just the same as the general public. Especially since there is no way to tell. The law requires what it requires, and one thing you may be forgetting is that it also requires that you have some sort of evidence of wrongdoing.
Again, for the legit KJs that purchase their music the way I've described, good luck with that.
We buy in good faith and if you are implying that even if we buy from what appears to be reputable sources that we still could get sued by you or others, then I call foul.
Either you want to sell your discs or not, and insinuating that if, for some reason, we end up with unlicensed product, especially when we have NO means of determining whether it is or not, that you will sue, then it certainly doesn't help your cause, does it? It would seem to me that the best course of action in such a case is to not purchase at all, lest the KJ end up with unlicensed product, despite his best effort not to.
As for my question, I will ask again, since you chose to ignore it.
Were the CB songs listed in the suit properly licensed by you prior to the date listed or not? If not, does that mean all our discs containing those songs are "illegal"?
I would think, that since you are wanting to put the onus on the KJ to determine whether product is properly licensed, that you would at least help to further that end by answering the question. Or perhaps you don't want to spoil any further pending lawsuits against stores, or KJs by telling us outright.
You certainly aren't doing anything to help quell the suspicion, are you?

 

[possumdog]

In re-reading the complaint, it would seem sections 19 and 21 would be the key--the complaint is for copyright infringement and involves manufacturing and distributing "unauthorized recordings" without obtaining ANY of the licenses required for karaoke--mechanical, sync, etc. As in, manufacturing is mentioned. Not just distributing recordings that might not be licensed but actually making the recordings and those being done by the defendant.

As for the rest, I don't see any way right now to practically know which brands/songs we can/can't buy, especially if we buy from an established distributor. Do I now sue K-Mart over the Karaoke Bay disc I bought there 8 years ago? We need to have a better alerting system in place or better monitoring on the manufacturing/distribution side of things. We aren't privy to the licensing negotiations. The original copyright owners are more in the position to shut the bad ones down. With even the major karaoke manufacturers sometimes being sued for licensing we are really in a mess if things get to that level. Especially if it could be applied retroactively, as implied. If I bought a TV set from a guy on the corner wearing a "Will Work For Beer" sign then I could see being suspected of aiding illegal activity. If I buy a TV set from Wal Mart then what reason to I have to expect it has been stolen? I'd say, give us something better to work with, information-wise, before statements are made about us not wanting to put in the work necessary to run our business. KJs have pirates nipping at their heels from below and manufacturers implying they are lazy criminals trying to smash them down from above. Makes one not want to give a hoot anymore.

Okay, now that I have expressed my frustration and ruffled feelings, let me be a bit more practical and reconciling--at the beginning of each CB song, it will say "Licensed To" with a number. On customs it also adds the buyer's name and now an ID number. Is one to assume that the "Licensed To" thing is proof of licensing on the manufacturer's part? Would unauthorized brands not show such info or is that just a CB thing? Will have to look more closely tonight at the others. Am just trying to find a way to have a way to know. And then, if the manufacturer gets sued after many discs have already been distributed, are you implying we should turn those discs into coasters and try to get our money back from the manufacturer for them?

 

[Chartbusterette]

Calm down, please.

I know how Djs are scrutinized. My hubby is one and has been for years. They go and purchase their music in the same way that we do through retail stores, second hand and online. They are NOT required to know whether something is licensed or not. Just the same as the general public. Especially since there is no way to tell. The law requires what it requires, and one thing you may be forgetting is that it also requires that you have some sort of evidence of wrongdoing.

If you know how DJs are scrutinized, then by all means draw your own conclusions. We don't now what evidence the plaintiff may have to support their claims, as we are not a party in the suit and haven't been through discovery.

Again, for the legit KJs that purchase their music the way I've described, good luck with that. We buy in good faith and if you are implying that even if we buy from what appears to be reputable sources that we still could get sued by you or others, then I call foul.

You may call whatever you like. If you thought that any particular source was/is either dealing fairly, or not, then you would have to draw your own conclusions, and base your actions on that determination. We have made no implications either way, other than to say it behooves anyone involved in a commercial enterprise to be as certain as possible that their dealings are above reproach.

Either you want to sell your discs or not, and insinuating that if, for some reason, we end up with unlicensed product, especially when we have NO means of determining whether it is or not, that you will sue, then it certainly doesn't help your cause, does it?

I'm not sure you have fully grasped what the complaint is asserting. Again, we are making no insinuations at all, merely stating that there are certain risks involved in operating a commercial enterprise, and mitigating those risks by gathering as much information as your resources and risk aversion dictate is only wise.

It would seem to me that the best course of action in such a case is to not purchase at all, lest the KJ end up with unlicensed product, despite his best effort not to.

The only way to make sure you never lose any game is not to play at all. Of course, it also assures never winning. Risk is an inherent element of any enterprise. Mitigating that risk is a balancing act that can be most demanding.

Were the CB songs listed in the suit properly licensed by you prior to the date listed or not?

Again, I urge you to reread the complaint. The answer to your question is there. We will not further comment on that matter. After reading this entire thread, we find that not a single comment has touched on what the real core of the complaint is alleging. While I suspect that no one who has commented thus far is a lawyer, the complaint itself is (perhaps curiously) almost a model of clarity. Throw out any preconceptions you might have, break it down into small parts, and it may help you to understand the complaint better. That method has worked well for me in the past when dealing with legalese.

You certainly aren't doing anything to help quell the suspicion, are you?

If you are suspicious, I doubt that anything we could say will alleviate you of any suspicion. That's fine - a healthy degree of skepticism can serve you well.

 

[Dan Hutter]

It's doubtful that the law requires you to anything more then buy in good faith. If I go to Karaoke-R-Us and buy a CD-G, I'm buying it in good faith that the store sources product from reliable distributors, and the manufacturer of the disc was properly licensed to produce that disc.

Now if I'm buying a burned disc online that's a whole other story. I cannot in good faith believe it's legitimate.

I think that's the crux of this whole thing..no?

 

[Chartbusterette]

In re-reading the complaint, it would seem sections 19 and 21 would be the key--the complaint is for copyright infringement and involves manufacturing and distributing "unauthorized recordings" without obtaining ANY of the licenses required for karaoke--mechanical, sync, etc. As in, manufacturing is mentioned. Not just distributing recordings that might not be licensed but actually making the recordings and those being done by the defendant.

That's a lot closer than anyone else has gotten so far.

I'd say, give us something better to work with, information-wise, before statements are made about us not wanting to put in the work necessary to run our business.

We never made any such statement. That you inferred so perhaps says more about your own mind-set than ours. For all we know, you research every track you purchase diligently, always buy from reputable sources, and delete everything that carries even the hint of trouble. Whether you go to these extremes or live on the other side, freely acquiring everything and anything and making it all available on BitTorrent, is a personal and business decision that only you can make.

KJs have pirates nipping at their heels from below and manufacturers implying they are lazy criminals trying to smash them down from above. Makes one not want to give a hoot anymore.

Sigh. If I posted a news story saying that a KJ had thrown himself in front of a train, would you think I was implying that all KJs should do likewise? We never said anyone was lazy, much less a criminal. We said that being a KJ might be harder than someone had anticipated, or had the stomach for. There are plenty of mighty tough service-men and -women, but not all of them could make it through jump school, or SEAL training. It's a matter of degree, of choice, and of trade-offs. Not everyone will think the risks are worth the rewards. Those people will quit the business, or make themselves blind to the risks, or rationalize their own behavior in such a way that to them, the risks are on someone else. Others will shoulder the responsibility and additional work, and soldier on. Which group any particular KJ falls into will be a choice for them to make.

Okay, now that I have expressed my frustration and ruffled feelings, let me be a bit more practical and reconciling--at the beginning of each CB song, it will say "Licensed To" with a number. On customs it also adds the buyer's name and now an ID number. Is one to assume that the "Licensed To" thing is proof of licensing on the manufacturer's part? Would unauthorized brands not show such info or is that just a CB thing? Will have to look more closely tonight at the others. Am just trying to find a way to have a way to know. And then, if the manufacturer gets sued after many discs have already been distributed, are you implying we should turn those discs into coasters and try to get our money back from the manufacturer for them?

Firstly, we have looked at an unholy number of DRM solutions. While some have promise, most are more a barrier to honest people than they are to thieves. Others are prohibitively expensive to implement, with little guarantee that one person hacking away in a cubicle somewhere won't obviate the entire scheme in a month (ever heard of DVD Jon?). None that we have looked at so far combine ease of use or transparency for the end user with security and reasonable cost for the rights holder. That said, there are some promising technologies on the horizon that we may ultimately have to embrace if we are to secure our content. Without getting into specifics, it may require a transformation of our business model in order to make these systems viable. That is however a decision for another day. Secondly, we appreciate the effort to follow your complaint with the offer of a solution. That implies a true desire to find a resolution for everyone, and shows your heart. Thank you. Finally, we are not aware of any effort to interdict discs that may have been sold in the past, contained unlicensed songs, and now reside in the hands of end-users. However, we would not discount the possibility that such discs being used in a commercial enterprise might not run afoul of litigators in the future. Apologies for the formatting - this editor is stripping out breaking spaces for some reason.

 

[c. staley]

Okay, for all of you KJ's out there I have a question for you:

Chartbuster has been asked repeatedly the same simple question which really has nothing to do with litigation regarding Warner-Chappell vs. LoudKaraoke, but more with the statement in the complaint that Chartbuster acquired licensing from Warner-Chappell on April 1, 2010.

The question is a simple one: "Did Chartbuster not have licensing from Warner-Chappell prior to April 1, 2010"

So far, we've never received a direct response to this question, nothing more than cryptic messages to divert this focus away from a direct answer to this simple question.

As we are now forced to continue this speculation, I would have to ask myself; "Why? What is the purpose for all this evasion?"

If in fact, Chartbuster's releases of discs and songs (listed on Exhibit "I") were properly and fully licensed for production and resale, their answer would be a simple: "yes" and that would be the end of the story. A simple statement that Chartbuster's product has always been licensed would not only put them in a better light, but reassure us KJ's using the product that we've made the right decision in selecting it for purchase.

However, if the answer is "no" then there there are other implications and ramifications regarding their product especially with the above mysterious warning from Chartbusterette:

Finally, we are not aware of any effort to interdict discs that may have been sold in the past, contained unlicensed songs, and now reside in the hands of end-users. However, we would not discount the possibility that such discs being used in a commercial enterprise might not run afoul of litigators in the future.

In which case, this would become a question which would be way too hot to field because it would include their product that was produced and marketed for KJ's to use in their "commercial enterprise" and diversion and mystery is the only way out. It would be a giant can of worms.

I know that although there has been plenty of rhetoric about being "above board, honest, upfront" etc., it isn't readily apparent in any of the above posts. I've read the entire complaint and I understand the allegations however this key question doesn't include anything more than whether or not Chartbuster has been marketing and commercially benefiting from the sales of unlicensed material before April 1, 2010. If Chartbuster is unwilling to provide the very information they are demanding that KJ's know in advance before purchasing their product, then to me (and in my opinion), it's nothing more than a setup for future litigation. It's also (to me) that the "master plan" of the manufacturers is to sell discs that will be labeled "for home use only" and a completely different medium or method "licensed for commercial use." Just like Sound Choice, they want to remove discs and completely control what you can play in a club and have KJ's purchase their libraries again.

It's ironic that while Chartbuster wants KJ's to provide information and "help them in their investigations" with as much information as you can give them.... while still merrily purchasing their product... that they would be so unwilling to provide the same level cooperation to the very KJ's that spend their hard-earned money to buy their product. No longer for me, so they've lost another customer.

Forget confirming this licensing with Warner/Chappell Music. They are under no obligation whatsoever to discuss any of their licensing with a KJ.

What do you think?

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Calm down, please.

I would encourage everyone to avoid speculation until this has played out a bit.

The main point to take from the report is that it does matter who you obtain your tracks from, and one should take care that each of your sources is above reproach. If you know for instance that certain tracks are unavailable in your market due to licensing, you shouldn't purchase them.

It has been stated that from a KJs perspective, if a song is available, then they can be purchased "in good faith." We don't believe that this is true, if one has knowledge that the tracks themselves are unlikely to be licensed.

We would also encourage everyone to read the document very carefully, in its entirety. I have seen some speculation in this thread that indicates that all of the document is not being considered in proper context, and that in some cases too much is being read between the lines. The complaint stands as it is written.

OK, since you haven't clarified, I will ask you straight out:

OK, let's try this another way: I have Chartbuster CB20573 ( Gretchen Wilson), and have had it prior to 2010-- meaning that it was produced and distributed prior to 2010. Are all the tracks on it licensed in the U.S? YES or NO? I have to know in case the publishers decide to come after KJs, and I'm asking YOU to state the answer here on a public forum. I have yet to make a single negative statement about Chartbuster, but if there is no definitive answer here, I will have to lump them in with SC and the other non-U.S. licensed mfrs.

I have been trying as hard as possible to give CB the benefit of the doubt, but posts regarding licensing have been non-informational.


PLEASE MAKE AN ACTUAL, NON-QUALIFIED STATEMENT- YES OR NO:
Your answer??:

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Calm down, please.

Exactly. You have to make a determination based on the information you've been able to gather from whatever sources you have at your disposal. You don't have the liberty of claiming to be an end-user and purchasing in good faith, as you are part of a commercial enterprise. This requires as much due diligence as you are able and willing to put forth.

You will likely weigh such effort based on your assessment of the risks involved, with higher risk justifying greater effort. It's entirely your call as the operator of the business. We just want you to be aware of the level of risk, as much as possible.



The board itself is not a source at all, but rather a place where sources gather. You will have to determine the verity of any claims made for yourself, and base them on your own opinion of the posters, their sources, and external reports.



One would hope that they have developed their own methods of knowing what is going on in their own industry. The legal process has ruled again and again that ignorance is no excuse for infringing activity.




We don't expect you (or any KJ) to do anything. What the law requires is that you operate your business within the framework of existing law.



Because you are not the general public, you are the operator of a business.



That question would be best directed to the authors of the statement. We can't and won't attempt to interpret it for you. We do caution you to read the entire document very carefully. There are nuances there that aren't immediately apparent.



We have.

This is really very easy. Do all of your available tracks have U.S. licensing from the publishers? Yes? No? Please supply link to licensing agency. Thank you.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Calm down, please.

You don't have the liberty of claiming to be an end-user and purchasing in good faith, .

Actually, holders of original mfrs. discs DO have that liberty. The original disc means that we bought in good faith, and there was no intent to defraud. The responsibility for licensing ( assuming the disc is being used, as opposed to a media shift, which is still unknown) then rests on the mfrs.- who produced and distributed said discs- shoulders. They were either licensed to do so, or they were not. NOT the the legit KJ's problem.

 

[Chartbusterette]

Calm down, please.

This is really very easy. Do all of your available tracks have U.S. licensing from the publishers? Yes? No? Please supply link to licensing agency. Thank you.

Since you seem to need it stated: yes, each track we release is licensed at the time of its release. There are quite a few licensing agencies, including HFA, which administers some but not all rights. Individual publishers administer some rights, and there are dozens. Some song rights are split among multiple publishers, and have to be tracked down individually. Some publishers are massive and have tens of thousands of songs, and some are small and handle only one songwriter. Licensing with some clearing-house agencies like HFA is relatively simple, and some rights can be obtained by submitting an even thousand requests at once. Some publishers have to be tracked down like a recluse (those aren't generally cost-effective or profitable to exploit, but there are exceptions). And some don't approve any requests for use at all, no matter what you are asking for.

The responsibility for licensing ( assuming the disc is being used, as opposed to a media shift, which is still unknown) then rests on the mfrs.- who produced and distributed said discs- shoulders. They were either licensed to do so, or they were not. NOT the the legit KJ's problem.

We are not at all certain that this is the case, when the song in question is being exploited for commercial purposes.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Calm down, please.

So my Gretchen Wilson disc was fully licensed at the time of original release? Yes or No?

 

[KJSandman]

Joe... here's your answer: "Since you seem to need it stated: yes, each track we release is licensed at the time of its release."

 

[c. staley]

Calm down, please.

Since you seem to need it stated: yes, each track we release is licensed at the time of its release.

Really? Seriously? Did you type that with a straight face? I have 592,000 reasons not to believe you.

Does this look familiar?
3:05-cv-00485 Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. et al v. Tennessee Production Center, Inc.

For those of you who don't know how to look up Federal lawsuits, let me summarize:

In 2005, Warner/Chappel Music, Inc. sued Tennessee Production Center doing business as Chartbuster Karaoke for copyright infringement based on their failure to license compositions, as follows:

Click HERE to read some of the infringing titles.
------------
Click HERE to read that NO licenses were issued.
--------------------
Click Here to read about CB refusing to pay all licensing or stop selling.
--------------------
Click HERE to red about willful infringement.

Okay -- we have allegations of willful copyright infringement involving Chartbuster producing and selling for YEARS, numerous songs without obtaining the proper licensing necessary to do so.
Were the allegations unfounded?
Was it a mistake on the part of Warner/Chappell?
Was it all a big misunderstanding?

Nope.

How can I be so sure? Because Chartbuster entered into a Judgment with Warner/Chappell on January 8, 2008, wherein they agreed to pay Warner/Chappell a whopping $592,000.00 to settle this lawsuit. The same Judgment provided a permanent injunction order against Chartbuster extended to certain of Warner/Chappell's compositions.

Click HERE to read the Judgment against Chartbuster.

Click HERE to read the FULL Complaint.

So -- let's start over, Chartbusterette. When I asked whether you had obtained all the proper licensing for all of your tracks manufactured by Chartbuster prior to April 1, 2010, and you said yes, it appears as though you have purposely mislead us here in order to make us believe you have been entirely 100 percent honest in your business practices. Was it your assumption that us lowly KJs were not smart enough to do a search?

I believe your credibility has been greatly damaged by your own actions and your omission of the truth. Just because you eventually paid for the licensing as part of a lawsuit settlement doesn't make your business practices are honest. It just means you were caught holding the cookie jar. A very expensive cookie jar.

I said previously that in order to require a KJ to submit to a comprehensive audit by a manufacturer, that manufacturer should be required to supply proof that all of their tracks had been licensed by the publishers prior to ANY sales.

It is clear to me why you've been so evasive.

It is also clear that you have no right to demand one thing from me.

 

[c. staley]

Joe... here's your answer: "Since you seem to need it stated: yes, each track we release is licensed at the time of its release."

Dear Mr. KJSandman,

I have a lovely bridge for sale too....

 

[Thunder Hag]

Wow, I stay amazed at the amount of effort you put in Chip...just to make a point.

I am from the belief that if I purchased the disc then I am safe in the eyes of the law. I purchased in good faith...if the manufactures sold me what is essentially stolen music, then I would have to assume if I were taken to court by the manufactures, I would be able to counter sue would I not? I am not trying to throw CB or SC or any other manu under the bus... just making an observation.