Officially Certified

[Guest]

this one hit me kinda funny.....i was not aware that ASCAP, BMI were only able to follow with civil action. Score 1 for Pro teaching me something i did not know.
on that same line.....
is the manus actions for their asset recovery also a civil tort and not law enforcement like ASCAP, BMI?
ASCAP, BMI are private, like AC, CB, Stellar, and issuing licenses for the privilage of playing their material, like legally purchased CD's and PC tracks
how does it differ when the karaoke manus (private) issuing licenses for the privilage of playing their material, like legally purchased CD's and PC tracks?

Copyright infringement is CIVIL law. This is essentially using something in a way that crosses the protections reserved in the copyright.

Piracy (a form of counterfieting) is CIMINAL Law. This is the actual distribution of material, either as counterfiet product, or replication specifically to avoid multiple purchases or royalties. Hence, file sharing, duping CDs and HDs ae all forms of distribution when the product is intended or ends up in the hands of multiple users. You might have noticed that people targeted by the RIAA law suits were not pursued for downloading - instead it was because they had hard drives open to the internet which enbabled distribution.

A single DJs format shift at worst is an infringement but, it remains only a technicality because it results in a circumstance where the palintiff could not demonstrate any actual damages. The lack of malicious or infringing intent usually negates statutory damages as well.

A mulit-op duping material many times over is piracy because he is redistributing the material without a license or permission. His main purpose is to avoid the cost of additional purchases, and hence he is counterfieting or pirating the material.

What then is the most likely "best" result if you sue a single DJ for format shifting? Well, you would be unable to demonstrate any actual damages, and in the absence of BOTH actual damages and an intent to infringe - you would likley not be awarded any statutory damages either. Thus, if you win on the technicality the only thing you can recover is your attorney fees - which the defendent can point out would not have incurred had you not wasted the court's time in the first place.

 

[Paradigm Karaoke]

i see that Pro, but that did not answer, nor address my question. if ASCAP, a private entity can require licenses for playing their material in public, why can the manus, also private entities not?

 

[JoeChartreuse]

I have a thought on that, but a guess only. ASCAP and the other artist orgs supposedly represent the artists- the actual owners of the music. ( I say supposedly because we all know how much of what they collect actually gets to the artists..:rolleyespill. The Mfrs. represent only themselves, and they are only licensees themselves ( some of them anyway). They don't own the music, or anything that actually requires any licensing.

 

[Paradigm Karaoke]

good thought Joe, and that brings up a question i have had along those lines.
Korn remade A brick In The Wall, they paid a license to do so, is it the same license the karaoke manus pay to remake the music part of karaoke songs?
not talking about lyrics or sync, just the music.

 

[Guest]

i see that Pro, but that did not answer, nor address my question. if ASCAP, a private entity can require licenses for playing their material in public, why can the manus, also private entities not?

No one is saying that they can't.
We're saying that as a KJ it's both unwise and unnecessary to subscribe.

These are just private business contracts. If you want to use music as your entertainment you must strike a deal with the author's - and you do that by contacting the rights management company they have chosen to represnt them. [ASCAP/BMI]

SC and CB are not authors or rights managers, they are licensees. There is no liability unless and until you subscribe to their individual private contracts.

 

[Paradigm Karaoke]

if you take into account my post just above (loosely posed to Joe) maybe you will see a bit more clearly my mindset and why it doesnt seem wrong to me.
what i see is the karaoke manus licensing, producing, and distributing these discs.....they say "buy it, and as long as you show you are not duping it, enjoy"
as opposed to the major labels licensing, producing, and distributing discs and saying "buy it....oh.....you want to USE it too? well, that requires this license and you are gonna have to continue to pay me more every year you want to use the product you already bought." as i see it, at least the karaoke manus are not charging me a fee to use the discs i paid for.
is there something else i am missing?:confusedpill:

 

[Guest]

if you take into account my post just above (loosely posed to Joe) maybe you will see a bit more clearly my mindset and why it doesnt seem wrong to me.
what i see is the karaoke manus licensing, producing, and distributing these discs.....they say "buy it, and as long as you show you are not duping it, enjoy"
as opposed to the major labels licensing, producing, and distributing discs and saying "buy it....oh.....you want to USE it too? well, that requires this license and you are gonna have to continue to pay me more every year you want to use the product you already bought." as i see it, at least the karaoke manus are not charging me a fee to use the discs i paid for.
is there something else i am missing?:confusedpill:

That makes no sense at all. What is it you are trying to say?

If I obtain a license to re-issue music in a particular compilation disc (For example: "Now That's What I Call Music" series) I do have the right to sue you for infringement of my license if you start duplicating my product.

That is the essence of a karaoke manufacturers rights - you are infringing their license to produce and distribute those cover works (a portion of the original authors copyright ceded to the manufacturer either temproarily or in other limited fashion.

They do not own a copyright to the music - only a license right to the works they produce. As a licensee they garner very little support from the labels - escpecially where those licenses have expired or produce very little income. That makes copyright suits largely ineffective for them and trademark a better angle in terms of getting statutory damages. They own their trademarks.

However, trademark infringement requires the trademark be used publicly - and that is not where the largess of piracy is occuring. You also can't haul someoneinto court for trademark and expect the court to prosecute for copyright instead. Hence, this whole law suit thing isn't going to change anyone's playing field. Most of the priacy is occuriing at the consumer level where many of these small bar KJs come from, and copyright is not trademark.

 

[Chartbusterette]

I have a thought on that, but a guess only. ASCAP and the other artist orgs supposedly represent the artists- the actual owners of the music. ( I say supposedly because we all know how much of what they collect actually gets to the artists..:rolleyespill. The Mfrs. represent only themselves, and they are only licensees themselves ( some of them anyway). They don't own the music, or anything that actually requires any licensing.

That's not true. We own the copyrights to our versions. That's both song and master, as these versions are re-recorded. Unauthorized duplication and/or distribution of same is clearly a copyright violation of what in this case becomes original works (for the karaoke versions). There has never been any question that duplication of these works does require licensing, or that we have ownership of our intellectual property. Your words are in error.

The licenses we purchase enable us to make these versions. We pay licensing fees based on use and sales of the re-recorded versions, but that doesn't make them any less ours. The publishers retain publishing rights, and license them to us, but our own works carry their own set of copyrights.

Complex, I know, but that's the world after the ABKCO decision that we live in.

 

[Paradigm Karaoke]

That's not true. We own the copyrights to our versions. That's both song and master, as these versions are re-recorded. Unauthorized duplication and/or distribution of same is clearly a copyright violation of what in this case becomes original works (for the karaoke versions). There has never been any question that duplication of these works does require licensing, or that we have ownership of our intellectual property. Your words are in error.

The licenses we purchase enable us to make these versions. We pay licensing fees based on use and sales of the re-recorded versions, but that doesn't make them any less ours. The publishers retain publishing rights, and license them to us, but our own works carry their own set of copyrights.

Complex, I know, but that's the world after the ABKCO decision that we live in.

so am i correct in my thinking that the manus own their re-recording of Another Brick In The Wall lets say the same way that Korn owns their re-recording of it?

 

[Chartbusterette]

so am i correct in my thinking that the manus own their re-recording of Another Brick In The Wall lets say the same way that Korn owns their re-recording of it?

If it works the same as in the karaoke world, then yes, they own specific rights to their recording, though not the publishing, which is retained by the songwriter(s), their publishing companies, etc.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

This only says that you are primarily legal.

No it doesn't. All it says is that one is in compliance with a particular compmanies preferences- Nothing to do with "legality"

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Rumbolt...
What makes a disc is its origin not its final destination
Again I dont want to sound grumpy but somethings for you to think about


why do you exclude used discs if they are manufactures original discs ?

True enough. The mfr. got paid for the disc. It has merely changed owners.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

if you take into account my post just above (loosely posed to Joe) maybe you will see a bit more clearly my mindset and why it doesnt seem wrong to me.
what i see is the karaoke manus licensing, producing, and distributing these discs.....they say "buy it, and as long as you show you are not duping it, enjoy"
as opposed to the major labels licensing, producing, and distributing discs and saying "buy it....oh.....you want to USE it too? well, that requires this license and you are gonna have to continue to pay me more every year you want to use the product you already bought." as i see it, at least the karaoke manus are not charging me a fee to use the discs i paid for.
is there something else i am missing?:confusedpill:

Yup. SC IS charging a fee...at least for the GEM series.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

That's not true. We own the copyrights to our versions. That's both song and master, as these versions are re-recorded. Unauthorized duplication and/or distribution of same is clearly a copyright violation of what in this case becomes original works (for the karaoke versions). There has never been any question that duplication of these works does require licensing, or that we have ownership of our intellectual property. Your words are in error.

The licenses we purchase enable us to make these versions. We pay licensing fees based on use and sales of the re-recorded versions, but that doesn't make them any less ours. The publishers retain publishing rights, and license them to us, but our own works carry their own set of copyrights.

Complex, I know, but that's the world after the ABKCO decision that we live in.

With all due respect (and I do respect you Debi- despite what Kurt may have told you) was speaking, as my post shows, of those who OWN the rights to the music, in regard to the artists associated with ASCAP, RIAA, etc...

The bottom line, and answer to the original question- is that ANYONE can sue for ANYTHING here in the good old U.S.. Heck, you can sue someone for being ugly if you want... Finding MERIT is a whole other story.

Yes, the artists orgs have no more real power than the mfrs., but they have more JUICE, thanks to the membership of so many influencial people, along with previous cases that have been presented to the courts and found to have merit..

Of course, afterward, the artists have to sue THEM to get any money, but hey, welcome to the U.S.

 

[Paradigm Karaoke]

Yup. SC IS charging a fee...at least for the GEM series.

that is a good point, but i was thinking more in my own case for simplicity. at least simpler in my mind, i own them all, not lease. but under the lease idea i can follow you a bit more. the gem series is a special circumstance. as CB has nothing like gem, and it is about them originally, i was trying to keep a bit more along those lines. Debi answered one of my questions well, and it appears they have the same rights, to stick with my original example, they have the same right to their remake of Another Brick In The Wall, as KORN has for their remake of Another Brick In The Wall. not even fighting everybody, Joe, you are disc based and so they are not bothering you. you do not have written permission to copy it and the certificate is the written permission to do so. seems like a good idea. i am not directing any of this at you, but you being disc based made it easy to explain whats in my head.