LoudKaraoke.com sued by publisher

[JoeChartreuse]

DKKJWhatJ, Welcome to the foum, and many thanks for the time taken to gather the information that you were kind enough to share with us! Printed and filed.


With just what was posted available, there were lawsuits filed as late as Jan. 9, 2009- and by more than one plaintiff. There may have been more filed at a later date, but just working with what I have.

I would like to know how many ( IF any ) of these suits were resolved to completion. By that I mean, say, if a monetary settlement was reached, completion would mean paid in FULL. The reason I ask is that one suit included a previous judgement where a settlement was reached, but never paid except for one payment. This caused a revisitation with a new suit. That case was from 2006, and the newer suits included the same plaintiffs.

Again, I don't bring this up in either a frivolous OR nasty manner. Though I can easily prove "Good Faith" if a publisher wants me to, I'd prefer to know in advance if I have to.

In other words, are the so-called "quality big 3" going to become a liability to my business? SC already is, by their own actions alienating venues. What about the rest?

 

[djkjwhatj]

None taken, but our contracts with publishers are not public documents.

Hmmm... Let's see if I understand the whole picture here:

1. Chartbuster says that it is the responsibility of the KJ to know -or to find out- if the material they purchase to use in their "commercial business" is licensed or not.

2. Publishers are under no obligation to discuss licensing with KJ's for any reason whatsoever.

3. Chartbuster will not provide any proof of licensing because their "licenses are not public documents."

Kind of a vicious circle here isn't it?

If you replace "Chartbuster" with any studio or publisher and "KJ" with anyone deciding to use or sell karaoke products in any commercial manner, your 3 points show exactly how messy this industry is.

 

[possumdog]

Whan Kurt used to post, he had mentioned that both PHM and CB also had suits currently against them. It just makes you wonder, who hasn't? What company won't be a liability to our businesses? Maybe all of this will just plain wipe out viable karaoke. In the meantime, I worry less and sing more.

 

[Thunder Hag]

Whan Kurt used to post, he had mentioned that both PHM and CB also had suits currently against them. It just makes you wonder, who hasn't? What company won't be a liability to our businesses? Maybe all of this will just plain wipe out viable karaoke. In the meantime, I worry less and sing more.

I think you have to kind of just put it in the back of your head...
Almost every company who made Karaoke in the US is now defunct and the ones still here seem to not have the real answers or choose not to answer the tough questions.
I think if it really came down to us being sued by anyone, we could always turn around and sue the manufactures for selling us what is essentially stolen goods.
I don't even worry about it anymore, I buy a disc, I play that disc if requested...end of story.
It should not be up to me, to find out all the legalities esp. considering the info is almost impossible to obtain.

I think we should all just enjoy the profession we chose to be apart of, instead of making the worry aspect a full time job in itself.

 

[possumdog]

Yes. I think we are perhaps getting a bit carried away. If one were to consider this to be a omen of KJs being sued for playing unlicensed tracks bought from a major distributor then not only would CB be a "liability" but also Legends, Karaoke Bay, Medacy, etc. All of these are brands that have been recommended as replacements for the big 3.

What no one seems to want to address is the part of the lawsuit that says Loud was "reproducing and distributing for sale" unauthorized tracks. After just a casual search, 6 of the 8 brands mentioned have been available on SCDG, one on Neo-whatever and one seems to be sort of obscure and found mostly on EBay. Perhaps the illusive source of the overpressings has been alleged? Again, just speculating but can we ignore the reproducing and distributing for sale thing and say this is all about selling unlicensed CB tracks and we are the next targets? I think this is about some unauthorized reproducing and selling.

 

[djkjwhatj]

It should not be up to me, to find out all the legalities esp. considering the info is almost impossible to obtain.

This is the conventional consensus on the matter (common sense), but the law does not always support common sense.

I think this is about some unauthorized reproducing and selling.

I can not say 100% for sure that that is not the case with the loudkaraoke.com lawsuit, but the "unauthorized reproducing and distributing" is used pretty loosely in these lawsuits and usually appears in most copyright infringement cases. I highly doubt these karaoke retailers and distributors would all be illegally producing the same brands of products, unless it is being directed at a studio.

 

[c. staley]

What no one seems to want to address is the part of the lawsuit that says Loud was "reproducing and distributing for sale" unauthorized tracks. After just a casual search, 6 of the 8 brands mentioned have been available on SCDG, one on Neo-whatever and one seems to be sort of obscure and found mostly on EBay. Perhaps the illusive source of the overpressings has been alleged? Again, just speculating but can we ignore the reproducing and distributing for sale thing and say this is all about selling unlicensed CB tracks and we are the next targets? I think this is about some unauthorized reproducing and selling.

"Reproducing" would include the "previews" that play a 30 second clip. It doesn't have to be the full song.

"Selling" most definitely selling. If you are selling songs on a Nutech disc that are owned by the publisher and never licensed to Nutech, you become fair game.

 

[Chartbusterette]

I would like to know how many ( IF any ) of these suits were resolved to completion.

They have all been resolved, and our relationships with the publishers are very strong at this point. There is one publisher (not one of the big ones, or a plaintiff) who we continue to negotiate with, but it's not a settlement issue, it's one of issuing current licenses. This is why we are able to continue to release new music. If the litigation was not resolved, we would have to delay releases from those publishers until it was.

 

[Diafel]

One has to wonder, though, why CB posts such a link and then refuses to clarify, and instead, posts cryptic and meaningless replies to legitimate questions?
What's the point?
Is it to get everyone all riled up so they can then play the victim? Seriously, that may not be what it is, but is sure appears that way!
Wouldn't it just be easier to answer the darn questions already?

 

[Chartbusterette]

One has to wonder, though, why CB posts such a link and then refuses to clarify, and instead, posts cryptic and meaningless replies to legitimate questions?

It's informational, and supports our assertion that any commercial enterprise must carefully evaluate the source of their music.

We don't speak to specifics about the case to prevent prejudice if we are required to later become involved. It's possible we'll need to file briefs, and so we don't want to make any public, specific statements about the particulars.

 

[djkjwhatj]

None taken, but our contracts with publishers are not public documents.

It's informational, and supports our assertion that any commercial enterprise must carefully evaluate the source of their music.

I don't know how anyone else feels about these two statements, but it almost seems conflicting.

C. Staley has already mentioned this point being that it's a "vicious cycle" so would you care to inform us on how we are to "carefully evaluate the source of their music" if the information is not made public?

 

[Chartbusterette]

I don't know how anyone else feels about these two statements, but it almost seems conflicting.

We're trying to come to terms with that now in a way that will be meaningful for KJs. We understand that it's difficult to gather all the information you'd need to make a clear decision. One of the ideas that we're discussing is whether or not it would be possible to post updated lists of licensed songs, or even reveal the contracts themselves. There are some tricky legal and contractual angles to it, not least of which is our MFN agreements.

We'll keep the forum posted on developments for this.

 

[djkjwhatj]

We're trying to come to terms with that now in a way that will be meaningful for KJs. We understand that it's difficult to gather all the information you'd need to make a clear decision. One of the ideas that we're discussing is whether or not it would be possible to post updated lists of licensed songs, or even reveal the contracts themselves. There are some tricky legal and contractual angles to it, not least of which is our MFN agreements.

We'll keep the forum posted on developments for this.

The effort is much appreciated on your end; However, this task seems like something that needs to be regulated in the music industry itself. In my opinion, the publishers should be the ones to make this information public, but I guess that would only happen in a perfect world.

 

[Chartbusterette]

The effort is much appreciated on your end; However, this task seems like something that needs to be regulated in the music industry itself. In my opinion, the publishers should be the ones to make this information public, but I guess that would only happen in a perfect world.

Agreed wholeheartedly, but karaoke to them is a side revenue. It's more important to them now than it's ever been, due to rapidly shrinking margins in the general music industry, but there's still a lot of the old guard around who scoff at the entire segment. Changing those perceptions is difficult to say the least. Growing the segment would help a lot, as it would translate into more revenues for them, with obvious advantages.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

They have all been resolved, and our relationships with the publishers are very strong at this point. There is one publisher (not one of the big ones, or a plaintiff) who we continue to negotiate with, but it's not a settlement issue, it's one of issuing current licenses. This is why we are able to continue to release new music. If the litigation was not resolved, we would have to delay releases from those publishers until it was.

Well, kinda sorta OK, but there are still difficulties:

1) As Possum noted, when Kurt was still posting (until very recently) he claimed that there were current suits against both CB and Stellar. Believe me when I tell you that I don't take his word for it, but don't know otherwise for a fact either.

2) Some songs ( about 180+) were part of the permanent injunction to which Chip posted a link. Those tracks could never be licensed, and the injunction included the destruction of the masters for those tracks.

Unfortunately, these unlicensed tracks are still in circulation.

A few include: "He Wasn't Man Enough For Me" - CB40063

"Say My Name" - CBSP3 & CB40063

"Get The Party Started" - CBSP4

"The Way You Love Me" - CBSP6

"Born To Fly" - CBSP6

"I Hope You Dance" - CBSP7

"One Sweet Day" - CB40017

"Just A Woman" (AKA When You Love Me) - CB20562

"Break It To Me Gently" - CB20225

That's nine out of 180+ in circulation, and that's only from this one injunction. Where do those discs stand?

I urge everyone to print out Exhibit A from that injunction, and match the songs with your library, just in case. These are definitely, no question about it, uh uh, ain't happening, unlicensed- which makes them no worse or better than most tracks in circulation, but it should be known for business purposes.

SIDE NOTE: The links seem to indicate that CB has been going through litigation from as early as 1996 ( Minus One Music ) to as late as January, 2009 ( Sony/Atv who now owns MMO)- also probably no worse but no better than many other mfrs.

SC is 100% unlicensed in the U.S. To clarify that: UK licensing requirements do not meet U.S. licensing requirements ( Sync, especially). They got UK licensing cheaply and easily so they could produce and manufacture there. The UK licensing is of absolutely no worth HERE.

It is my understanding that Stellar may have some current problems with licensing as well. If that's true, so much for "The Big Three".

Again, no nasties, but if one is running a business, one should be aware of all it's facets. I bring up the licensing problems here because it seems most U.S. mfrs have been in the same boat.The only U.S. mfrs. that I have no negative info on at this point are SyberSound ( AKA Party Tyme Karaoke) and Pocket Songs.

This means that there is probably not a single KJ out there that is immune to publisher problems (except MAYBE if they are disc based and only use SyberSound and Pocket Songs- MAYBE).

On the other hand, I also don't believe that a karaoke mfr. has a shot in hell in court against a KJ, because of all the unlicensed discs in circulation, and their own past histories of doing exactly what they are crediting to KJs.

I'm not expecting any major action from publishers against individual hosts in the near future either. I'm much more worried about general usage, which effects everyone.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

We're trying to come to terms with that now in a way that will be meaningful for KJs. We understand that it's difficult to gather all the information you'd need to make a clear decision. One of the ideas that we're discussing is whether or not it would be possible to post updated lists of licensed songs, or even reveal the contracts themselves. There are some tricky legal and contractual angles to it, not least of which is our MFN agreements.

We'll keep the forum posted on developments for this.

First, I have to state that it is not up to the KJ to "make a decision". The manufacturer either has full U.S. licensing for a track and can prove it, or they do not and cannot- period.

Second, what I have been suggesting all along is that mfrs. provide licensing documentation with every disc sold. It would be much easier than printing the lyric sheets that used to come with all discs, cover the KJ, and give credibility to the manufacturer. Problem solved.

CB ( I get the sense that more than one person is posting under your screen name, so I will just use "CB"), your thoughts on this idea?

 

[Diafel]

CB ( I get the sense that more than one person is posting under your screen name, so I will just use "CB")

I have the very same feeling!

 

[c. staley]

Agreed wholeheartedly, but karaoke to them is a side revenue. It's more important to them now than it's ever been, due to rapidly shrinking margins in the general music industry, but there's still a lot of the old guard around who scoff at the entire segment. Changing those perceptions is difficult to say the least. Growing the segment would help a lot, as it would translate into more revenues for them, with obvious advantages.

If I had the ability to go after the Karaoke manufacturers for judgments in over several million dollars for blantant, willful infringements of my copyrighted materials, it would become pretty important to me, as well. Let's not blame the publishers for not regulating the industry better -- the bottom line is if the manufacturers had consistently put out licensed materials, we wouldn't be having this problem now. It is the manufacturers that have made us infringers by flooding the market with questionably licensed materials, and then leaving us holding the bag -- all the while saying it's our problem if we are using unlicensed materials that they put on the market and that we purchased in good faith to begin with.

Unreal.

 

[Chartbusterette]

1) As Possum noted, when Kurt was still posting (until very recently) he claimed that there were current suits against both CB and Stellar. Believe me when I tell you that I don't take his word for it, but don't know otherwise for a fact either.

We have current cases we are working through both as a plaintiff and as a defendant. This is the normal course of doing business in America. However, none of them involve a publisher, which is I think what you are referring to (and please correct me if I am wrong).

2) Some songs ( about 180+) were part of the permanent injunction to which Chip posted a link. Those tracks could never be licensed, and the injunction included the destruction of the masters for those tracks.

I will be happy to respond to that - could you please post the link in question?

Unfortunately, these unlicensed tracks are still in circulation.

I looked at these individually, and some are showing as clear for manufacture, and some are not. If you would be so kind as to post that link, I'll clear up the matter.

The links seem to indicate that CB has been going through litigation from as early as 1996 ( Minus One Music ) to as late as January, 2009 ( Sony/Atv who now owns MMO)- also probably no worse but no better than many other mfrs.

Part of that issue is the way the ABKCO decision fell out.

Again, no nasties, but if one is running a business, one should be aware of all it's facets. I bring up the licensing problems here because it seems most U.S. mfrs have been in the same boat.

No offense taken - these are valid questions, and you have presented them in a calm and straightforward fashion. Again though, I would remind you of ABKCO. That wiped out a lot of manufacturers all by itself.

On the other hand, I also don't believe that a karaoke mfr. has a shot in hell in court against a KJ, because of all the unlicensed discs in circulation, and their own past histories of doing exactly what they are crediting to KJs.

We don't think that is so, and we have some of the best copyright lawyers in the business working for us now. However, I will concede that we will have to agree to disagree until such time that a case of this nature reaches a resolution in court.

 

[c. staley]

Originally Posted by JoeChartreuse
2) Some songs ( about 180+) were part of the permanent injunction to which Chip posted a link. Those tracks could never be licensed, and the injunction included the destruction of the masters for those tracks.

I will be happy to respond to that - could you please post the link in question?

It's a court order. You don't have your copy of the permanent injunction in your own filing cabinet?