The Big Karaoke Crackdown
from the sing-along-now... dept
Earlier this week, Aaron deOliveira pointed to the news that the music industry was going after a pub in Syracuse, NY for having a karaoke night and not paying the related performance fees (the pub claims that only five songs in the rotation were on the list of complaints). Apparently, industry lawyers actually bothered to hire a private investigator to go to the pub and write down the songs being sung. By itself, this didn't necessarily seem postworthy. However, then Michael Geist pointed out that similar charges have been filed at some clubs in Canada. It's probably a coincidence, but perhaps the industry has suddenly decided that it's simply not squeezing enough money out of people singing along badly to songs they enjoy and has decided to start cracking down on "rogue" karaoke providers. Not that the recording industry is known for their "big picture" thinking, but this seems fairly shortsighted. Shouldn't they be encouraging more people to sing along with their favorite tunes? Next thing you know they'll start going after those of you who sing outloud as you listen to your iPods. After all, if you're outside, it is a "public performance."
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
C'MON!!! That is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Lame
What a fruitless effort. Most bars/clubs would stop having karaoke nights before paying performane fees.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Bars and karaoke
Demigod is right, and it's happened before here in vegas. We lost one club because this exact thing happened.
On the other hand, the last bar we played at got threatened by ASCAP for not paying fees, and the bar owner simply asked the ASCAP representative where it shows in writing that he has to pay HIM, not the artist in question. The next question he had for ASCAP was "where in the letter of the law does it say a bar having karaoke is required to pay?"
As far as nevada law goes, it doesn't, and they tend to back down at this point. The problem is most bar owners aren't as much of an ass as this guy is, and don't want the fight.
Of course his other response was "OK, we'll stop having karaoke. Then when you leave, we'll have it again, until you come back...then we'll stop again." :P
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
REALLY!!??
I am trying to figure out if this is for real or some kind of joke. If it's for real, then what a bunch of f*cking idiots!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Eh, whatever. The more they try to turn their customers into "criminals" the more of there customers who will decide they might as well be "criminals" if they are going to be treated that way. The RIAA are nothing but a bunch of thieves, and I could care less about the "rights" of thieves.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Such Bull
The music industry is starting to look like a bunch of greedy a-holes. I am getting sick of these rich sons of b's taking the screw to their fans.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"starting to look like a bunch of greedy a-holes"
Starting? Where have you been living? Mars?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Lawyers vs. People
The Music industy spends more on Lawyers then they make by suing the people, Flippin A-holes, Burn them all!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ASCAP is a lot of the problem. Not only do they go after the bar owners, but the people who own the karaoke systems. Most karaoeke discs, that I know of, have changed a word or two so as not to be excatly like the original version. Thus they should be able to get around legalities. It's like adjusting a recipe to make it yours. Evidently, following the "bouncing ball"is now illegal.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wow
It sounds so ridiculous that it couldn't be made up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Pathetic Leeches
ASCAP/BMI/RIAA/MPAA is so frightened by technology that all they know how to do anymore is litigate. Forget about coming up with new ideas or an attractive product - that's too hard! Better to create these little "legal' traps (DMCA, Copyright that never expires) and then sue as much as possible, for as much as possible. They seem to prefer operating in this negative way, and while it only makes enemies of their customers, appearantly this is their chosen business model. Tell a friend.
www.unhappybirthday.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Same old game
I can remember ASCAP going around my town and threatening businesses that were playing a radio. Back then they must have been hawking DMX (digital radio). You could either sign up for a special license of DMX or risk getting sued.
I'm not surprised they're pulling this crap now. When are artists going to realize it's in their interest to bypass old organizations like ASCAP and the RIAA and sell directly to their audience?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
....
ASCAP is a different animal than the RIAA. ASCAP gives money to the artist, RIAA gives it to the record companies.
artists (like myself) use ASCAP as a way of getting our music out to the masses and also as a tool for getting paid for what we create.
I agree business owners probably hate ASCAP, but its the law to pay for public perfomances of songs/film/tv that is copyrighted.... and if there's a problem with it, they should contact their congressman.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ....
Good work getting your name out there somemusician...
Or are we simply playing devil's advocate? ;)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wow and we thought it was just the RIAA and ASCAP who were greedy. Good luck with your music. Feel free to create it and stick the recordings in your closet. It’s asinine not to let people sing along to the songs.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I would like to see proof that any monies recovered by RIAA or ASCAP actually goes to the artists that are supposedly affected, not overly loud statements about the the poor starving artists but actual in writing proof. Sadly I think I am asking for the location of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
uh oh...
Someone is going to arrest me in the shower, i know it
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Marketing and Goodwill - Foreign words to the Indu
"Shouldn't they be encouraging more people to sing along with their favorite tunes?"
Unfortunately, the industry seems hell bent on squeezing every last penny instead of actually marketing music and creating goodwill. I've been wating for WKRP in Cincinnati to come out on DVD, but apparently, they can't confirm who holds the rights to the music played in the show, therefore, no DVD. Gotta love it when copyright law is use to prevent competition, innovation, etc. I want WKRP on DVD!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ....
Is it the law? I thought the law is that you have to obtain permission of the copyright holder, and part of that permission may be the payment of a fee.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
LOL
That's too funny and ridiculous....
What's next? Confiscating of IPods and charghing for the music you did not download from ITunes?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
forget you
All I got to say to this, after reading someartists remarks is F*CK off! Just for that I'ma steal my music from now on. P2P FTW!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I personally agree with somemusician.
First of all, the RIAA doesn't have anything to do with this, this is an ASCAP thing.
And if a business like this pub wants to bring in customers with public performances of their artist's songs (albeit terrible performances), they need to pay the respective fees and quit being cheap.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
LOL
Actually MP3Pirate they are starting to fine people for having mp3's on a burned cd. So I might watch how many you keep in your car.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Sorry Anonymous, but they are rich enough. The bars shouldn't have to pay a fee for music that's already been paid for, or music that's been altered to the point that it no longer matches the copyrighted material.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How much do you have to give?
I have been running Karaoke for a couple of years and have invested over $7,000 in karaoke disks which has given me about 8,000 non repeated songs and the quality of some brands don't even sound like the original at all. It's up to the singer to out perform the track and make a good performance come to life, not the ASCAP. Without the singer who has already bought the CD to practice with, there would be many more awful renditions. When people hear great renditions in karaoke they would be more inclined to go out and buy the original CD. So shut up and just except the fact that you can't get more of your hands in our pockets. Karaoke adds revenue to the music industry without extortion.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Well this is ridiculous, but I'm wholly support any stipulation that will help to extinguish karaoke.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So what if they just played a similar background music and the singers would have to provide the lyrics to the best of the memory? That would not be infringement, but I'd bet my last dime that they sue for that as well.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
More bad news.
So what is the difference between karioke and a cover band? Is it because the cover band is actually producing the sounds?
That must mean that they have illegally stored the copyrighted music in thier heads and it must be removed. Ok well at least fined.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
karaoke is old news when it comes to ascap. most karaoke companies have already paid a icensing fee with ascap for the songs and then pass that cost over to the bar/club that uses their songs. it's not like these people are in their home with friends; they're in a bar that likely profits from having a karaoke night (ie. profiting from someone else's copyrights). The license includes the right to play the song as well as to display the lyrics (which may have their own copyrights), and one needs to probably clear the right to publicly perform the work. This is also why the riaa (i don't know about ascap) was thinking of suing everyone who posts their own karaoke versions of songs on YouTube. Though that is probably a bit safer (is anyone profiting?) its the same idea.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
LOL
Those b*stards can try and sue all day long and get no where. As long as people change the background music and lyrics sufficiently there aint jack they can do about it. The copyrights only go for the exact song, so make sure you put your own twist on it, and to hell with the RIAA.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How much do you have to give?
You know it Virginia, as a patron of bars, I myself have been turned on to new tunes that I would of not heard or known about. ASCAP is a scam and we all know it, I am a musician too and have never joined their unions or participated in ASCAP. I played in bars in cover bands all the time, played original too, would feel flattered if I went to a bar and heard a cover of MY tune. For me it is not about money, it is about creative expression.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
BTW, Bars don't profit from karaoke, they profit from people getting up on stage and making an ass out of themselves. Honestly no one really cares what they are singing, or for that matter can remember it the next day. No offense to anyone of course.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How much do you have to give?
You know it Virginia, as a patron of bars, I myself have been turned on to new tunes that I would of not heard or known about. ASCAP is a scam and we all know it, I am a musician too and have never joined their unions or participated in ASCAP. I played in bars in cover bands all the time, played original too, would feel flattered if I went to a bar and heard a cover of MY tune. For me it is not about money, it is about creative expression.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The point of copyright law....
is to give artists incentive to continue to make original creations by allowing them to make a living from their work. Our founding fathers in this country made copyright law specifically to encourage continued innovation and artistic expression because IT ENRICHES OUR PEOPLE AND OUR WORLD to have inventions, works of art and music being made in every generation and by artists who devote their lives to their work. Without an incentive to innovate and create new works, our world would be pretty ugly, boring and grey to say the least.
If all an artist has to look forward to is to make a work, sell it once and then suddenly it becomes "free" because there are no copyright laws (or everyone steals it as now happens), that artist will soon give up making original works. That means the world loses the richness an artist brings to the world through sharing their creative gifts. So you haven't just stolen from the artist, you've stolen from society when that artist gives up and takes a job washing dishes or driving truck because they can't survive on their art any longer. How many Elvis's, Beatles, Mariahs, Spielbergs, Bruckheimers and so on would never realize their potential because they couldn't make enough money to survive? How many great works of art would we as society lose because society didn't care to support the artist? Sad but it can happen if copyright laws are rolled back.
I don't know about you but I don't want to live in a world of cookie cutter freshman music, art and design, no inventions or innovations coming along to enrich life because artists and inventors *innovators* realize they can't survive being artists. I don't want to live in a place where books, movies, paintings, sculpture, photos, music, tv shows and so much more are only produced by newbie artists who try once and find out they can't make enough money to live. Would you really want to enjoy only the first efforts of artists? Would you give up the possibility of enjoying all the Spielberg movies in exchange for having just his first effort all because you feel you have a right to have free access to copy and distribute creative works? Doesn't anyone see how shortsighted and self destructive this would be? "Yeah, I'll take the one made with baby steps and copy it, show it, share it all I want. But I don't care if I miss the chance of seeing any of the other possible efforts *no matter how great they are* that this artist might make in the future."
This copyright law brouhaha is not about the little guy against the "industries". It's about artists being able to survive. Copyright gives them a means to do that if their work is good enough. Without copyright protection, the creative effort would not be worth the time and energy.
Ever notice how an artist gets better, evolves and explores new areas over time? How some musicians create a killer 3rd album but their 1st and 2nd are not worth listening to? Well there would never be that 3rd album if the artist thought they could not survive because society didn't value them enough to pay them in exchange for the use and enjoyment of their work.
Copyright affects a lot more than just music. I'm not sure about ASCAP and RIAA and the corporate entities involved and how they are "demons" to be fought (as some feel they are). But I'm an artist in another medium and what I'm saying is that artists can't survive unless they can control and profit from their work - they can't do that if people are stealing it and using it without permission. No one can live on air and compliments, it takes money. And artists deserve to be able to make money from their work on their terms. If you don't like their terms, don't patronize them.
Our founding fathers supported creatives and made copyright a law. Our legislators understand that creators must have the law on their side to protect their investments in their future, their works that they control in order to make enough money to survive. If you really think you deserve "free" art/music/creations, how about quitting your job and begin living as an artist. How about trying to make a living from creating original things you sell. See how long you can survive. You might just realize that being an artist is not all money and glory, and that artists deserve to be paid and deserve respect for the enrichment they bring to our world.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Dear idiot, yes the copyrights are there to protect the inventors and the artists, however that is why you can take an invention study it and improve upon it and copyright it yourself. Same goes with music. As long as you change it sufficiently to make it yours there is no infringement. Now as in the invention if people don't like your version and or improvement of the invention then they will buy the original. same goes for music and other art forms. That is simply how it is and how the laws are.
So in short Mr.someartist GET REAL! And live with it!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The point of copyright law....
someartist- you seem to have a very narrow view of how artists get paid.... i'm guessing you haven't made any money on your own works yet....
In any case, if some bar has your song in a karaoke file, you have probably already made plenty of money on it because you have record and concert royalties, and it has been on the radio for 6 months.... it's not like the bar is holding out your work as their own... if someone knows it well enough to karaoke it, and a karaoke provider has gone to the trouble of writing it into his playlist it has to be a pretty popular tune.
If you have the kind of exposure needed for this to happen, and you haven't made decent money off of the track, it's your own fault for not negotiating a favorable deal with your record company/tour manager/etc...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Dear MrPhoenix,
You're right - you can't copyright an idea. It's only the EXPRESSION of an idea that is copyrighted the moment it takes a tangible form. That means the moment you finish a painting or sculpture, click a camera shutter, finish a screenplay or music score. And once the copyright is in place (you don't have to register it, it is automatically granted when you make something), it becomes illegal for anyone but the creator to copy or use that work in any way unless they have the express permission of the creator.
That's the law and as I wrote, there are very good reasons for it - survival of artists/creators AND ongoing innovation and enrichment of our society as a whole. Very well thought out reasoning I might add - the fathers of our country were certainly not stupid when they included laws to protect artists/creatives.
But there are very specific legal interpretations about what is plagerism (illegally copying with no real unique artistic creation i nvolved) and what is actually creating a new work of art. This gets into derivitive works which according to law again is a right the artist controls -- no matter how much you'd like to have that right.
Changing a few words in a song is not enough -- the melody, tempo or key must be changed as well. If not enough words are changed, it would still be copyright violation -- stealing from the artist. But if the words are changed to make a parody of the song, that could be considered Fair Use under copyright law.
Here is a link to more info on the myths about copyright:
10 Myths about Copyright There is some info on derivitives, parody and Fair Use there - an excellent primer on the whys and hows of copyright.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Paying for what you like
Someartist, how much have YOU lost by having your music "stolen"? And how much of the money collected by RIAA, ASCAP, et al, have YOU seen [for residuals, not original payment]? For that matter, how likely are we to have heard your music? I don't go out and buy a CD because of the name of the artist/group, I buy because I've HEARD their music and liked it. What was the likelihood that what I heard was "stolen"? Pretty great!So in your best of all worlds, where your music is only played after it's paid for, you'd be SOL. A lot of the people you mentioned got their music out to the people by having it played on radio [and even went to the extent of illegally PAYING radio stations to play their music], playing in public [often for free, or for drinks in a bar, or, if they were good enough, for a small performance fee] until enough people had heard them that they could charge for their performances. How many new artists never made the 2d or 3rd album because no one had heard them and there was no demand for thier music.
If your music were good enough, people would want to have it available to listen when they wanted. Your arguments are valid if you were talking about people sharing your recordings, but you should be happy if your music is played in public. As far as karoke goes, as someone said, the "entertainers" there are the people who get up and entertain. If you want payment for the performances of your music in public, then you need to be performing. Once your music has been sold, that copy belongs to the buyer. You can make as many copies as you like, and sell each one. Your problem is getting people to want that music enough to buy it. And the best way to do that, if your music is good, is to let people hear it so they will want to own it, and want other music you create.
You spoke of artists whose 3rd album is better than their first. I wonder how that number compares to those whose first album, often first recording, is the best they ever do, and they just go down from there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wow someartist you don't pay much attention do you. Please re-read my last statement. I said as long as you change it sufficiently then it is not infringement, and in an earlier statement I pointed out that the background must be change again sufficiently to avoid infringement.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Oh and just so you know just because you copyright something does not mean that you can't get screwed. If you invent something and someone finds a way to improve it then they can either come up with their own spin on it and copyright the whole thing. Or they can copyright the improvements they come up with. So when the original inventor also finds the improvement he has to pay the inventor of the improvement in order to use it.
Something else while I'm at, That jon guy is right. I don't quote steal music. If I hear of a group and can find a song name I will download it and listen. If I like it then I usually go out and buy the album, if I don't like it I delete and don't give another thought about them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm not a music artist...
...I'm a visual artist, Jon. So I can't completely identify with your feedback. What I can identify with is having my visual art stolen and reproduced (like crap I might add) by people who make $$$ off my work without paying me. That is illegal and makes it harder for me to make a living. It makes it harder for me to keep focused on my artistic visions, to keep pushing to make better work in the future. And besides, it's just plain not fair to take things that don't belong to you and then turn around make money with stolen goods. Or to take the goods that an artist might sell and give them away for free - that's like going to the corner store and throwing open the doors after you buy your chips and beer and saying "Hey, come and steal some for yourself! Everyone can have whatever they want here - I've already paid!". It's just crazy and completely illogical. You don't own the rest of the store's stock any more than you own the rights to reproduce the song or painting or book you buy.
That's the point here: if you use someone else's property to make money (or prevent them from making more money by giving it away ** as in copies), you have to pay for the privilege. That is the economics of art. A piece of art (print, sculpture, song, movie) is not something that "belongs" to the buyer to do whatever they wish once they buy it. It belongs to the artist and the COPY they sell to people is for PERSONAL enjoyment NOT for use commercially to make the buyer an income. Art is not like widgets, piecework that you sit and make 12 hours a day, hoping to sell 2 dozen widgets today to stay afloat. That's why the economics of art is so hard for the non-artist to understand.
In the case of karaoke, the writer of the song (lyrics and tune regardless if that is one person or two) are the owners of the song NOT the person off the street who buys the CD or pays for a download of the tune. The song owners get to decide how much someone pays for the privilege of making money with their property. The buyers off the street are buying a copy for personal enjoyment only - not for commercial gain. That is copyright law and I've already explained why we as a society should encourage and support artists for the good of society as a whole.
If you don't like copyright law, then you'll need to change it. But before you go off half-cocked and try to do that just to spite the ASCAP or RIAA or some other big corporate entity that you view as the villain keeping you from what you consider to be your rightful freebies, think about this: there will be no legendary artists in the future if there isn't copyright law to help them make a living from their work. There will be no more Steven Spielbergs, Mariah Careys, U2s, Steven Soderberghs, Michael Crichtons, Eric Claptons, Johnnie Cashes, Luther Vandrosses, Tom Pettys, Ray Charleses, Bob Dylans, Jerry Bruckheimers, Picassos, Rodins, VanGoghs.... and I could go on. There will be more legendary artists that develop and hone their art over time. Why? Because society insists they have a right to steal their work from them without paying them.
You said it best:
" I wonder how that number compares to those whose first album, often first recording, is the best they ever do, and they just go down from there."
Well, maybe they couldn't continue because other artists ripped off their work and then made the work into hits and the real creators couldn't afford to fight them and get their due payment. Or maybe they were just not very good artists to begin with and only had one record in them. For those types, I don't much care if they don't survive to make another record. But I DO NOT WANT TO LOSE THE ABILITY TO HAVE LEGENDARY ARTISTS who develop and hone their craft over a lifetime and keep delighting us with beautiful work. I do not want to lose people like I named all because society is so short sighted they can't see that without copyright law to help artists make a living and have incentive to keep going, there will just be no one who will make art. Oh, except we'll have uber rich moron no-talents like Paris Hilton to entertain us since she can just use her trust fund....No thank you, I'll take real art over that any day. I hope I die before I see a world filled with "artists" like that....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Blake
That's just the brainless reply that I would expect from someone with no talent, education, or respect for other forms of entertainment besides WWF, farting, burping, or other things a delinquent would find funny or entertaining! Obviously you have been the butt of many cruel practical jokes... How about your grammar too, you must be a cartoon or just another lonely grade school dropout who lives with his mother and knows how to use a spell checker? "but I'm wholly support any stipulation that will help to extinguish” - “Closed minded, 40 year old VIRGINS like you Blake". If you don’t like Karaoke please do us all a favor, stay home, keep your Gameboy company and try to keep your foot out of your mouth.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This is news? Or even new?
5his is the law of the land and it is nothing new, it is the way performers get paid. The fees are paid by people running commercial establishments. Don't use music to generate profits and you don't have to pay.
If you can't understand that, you are either a commie treehugging bad smelling homo, or an idiot. So which one is it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmm ok it's illegal to quote steal someone music or art and profit from it, but yet it's legal for businesses to either fish for your information or blatently produce malware to report your private information back to them, both are stealing. It's just a double standard deal. And yes to take someones whole art and profit from it is stealing, same goes with inventions. However they are going after even the people with mp3 cd's that they have made as a backup to their originals that they bought, and because they can't produce the original copy then they are getting sued over it. It's just greedy BS guys! Just face it already.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I mean just think about it. For everyone that downloads a song there is probably 5 more that actually go out and buy it. there really isn't that much loss. Just stop being so greedy and be happy being a poor bastard like the rest of this country.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:Hogan
Thanks Hogan, you and I have obviously similar backgrounds, I have been in bands since I was 16 and just stopped playing the bar scene last December. At 43 years old and making triple what I would playing guitar and singing on a Friday and Saturday it was a no brainer to put my sound equipment to work, albeit I have an enormous amount of equipment to haul around and that makes my Karaoke system sound live. The one thing that I have to live down is that most Karaoke jockeys have what I call boom box Karaoke, an all in one mixer/amp, 2 small cheap speakers that sound like an AM radio in a trash can turned up to the point of total distortion and a couple of $20 mics. What you would buy your child but with just a bit more power, still garbage in my opinion. I do miss some of the attention I would get but I don't have to sing 40 to 50 songs in a night anymore.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Promotion
Karaoke is a great promoter for the original artist but no one is paying bars to promote them, if you want to get technical about it. Don't forget that one karaoke disk cost around $30 for 15 songs and there are tons of people doing Karaoke so someone is making a load of cash. Also your not buying the original artist performance minus words, you get garage band or better take-offs a lot, except for Sound Choice and Chartbuster who seem to have the best musicians in Karaoke but you will pay a premium for the better quality disk. I have about 60% Sound Choice in my collection. One other thought, if you buy a disk with 15 songs you may have paid for 13 songs that will never be played, that makes the 2 songs pretty expensive. I have around 8k songs but each night I take from 50 to 70 request’s that’s less than one percent and I did pay over $7k in hard cash up front, how about just leaving it alone, in the immortal words of David Gilmore “What do you want from me”.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So where does congergational singing in a church fall into this mess? Is it one songbook per singer or can two or three sing from the same book?
And how about the good ole song that we have all sung. "Happy Birthday"? I think I read that Time Warner owns the rights to that song and that they collect a couple million (USD) per year from it. You'd think well who the hell would pay for that? And you'd be correct to think so except that I suppose that anytime it's sung by a DJ over the air or live, it's been paid for, Right?
The happy birthday deal get's deeper too. Consider this, next time you take dear GF out to eat for her birthday and you tip off the waiteress that it is GF's birthday, knowing they will come out with their big assed hats and oversized foam shoes and sing "Happy Birthday" to her,
well, stop them before they start singing because you need to know if it's being sung legally. If not here you go becoming a part of this crime. You requested the song, you sat there and listened to the song with a big ole stupid grin slapped accross your face and you whistled it for the next two days because you couldn't get it unstuck from inside your head.
Anyway, the boss is coming, gotta zip. Someone finish this for me
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
It DOES matter what music is available for karaoke, because it has to be something the (probably drunk) person actually knows if they are going to get up and sing it. Bars DO profit from karaoke night. Much like the music industry, the alcohol indusry is big business ($140 billion in sales per year in the US)...if anything there should be MORE leverage against bars than there is against regular folks. It's not like the alcohol industry can't afford karaoke licenses.
I thought TechDirt was frequented by people fighting for the little guy. The alcohol industry doesn't count.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Free Promotion + Double-Dipping = $$$!
Those Karaoke discs are expensive, and don't you think ASCAP already gets paid when the discs are licensed, and then again ("per unit") when they are produced? Add in the extortion money from so-called public performance of each song, and ...actually that would be Triple-Dipping.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Profit where Profit is Due
This is a case where someone is making a profit with someone else's art. A profit is actually being made, and not a penny is going to the creator/owner of the work...that's just plain wrong. The money involved makes it completely different from the scenario in which people are sharing "free" copies of songs with each other.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Something else comes to mind. Everyone who frequents a bar has notice the big televisions that are showing news and sports. Now those programs are copyrighted and do you see them paying the networks or the teams? No? I didn't think so. That's because they don't, and yet I don't hear the networks complaining to much about it. Again it's just the greedy hands of the RIAA and ASCAP that are causing the problems.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
whoa amos if your referring to congregational singing, those aren't free copies. They are copyrighted and have been paid for. For the longest time my church rented a public building and if we wanted to sing we had to keep the doors closed and the volume down or we would be quote having a public performance. So therefore we would be breaking the law. To top that off if the material started to wear out we aren't allowed to make copies of it to replace the old ones. It's not like we are reditributing them or anything, and I know it's not the artists fault it's the damn recording company.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
pay 'em with pennies, the chinsey recent ones, buried in dogshit. They can have their money when they paw through all the crap and then count it all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Well said anonymous
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
@ phoenix: Shhhh! They'll hear you!
Ya professional sports is big huge money, a lot of mouths to feed - wonder why ABC/NBC/CBS hasn't tried putting this plan to work? Seems to me it would be even easier to get extortion money from bars who show TV as their featured entertainment, than from amateur vocalists attempting to sing to a backing track of "Emotional Rescue".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Karaoke
Karaokes, if you look at it in a legal manner, does violate the (copy)rights of the artist, in the sense that they are illegal (modified, but still illegal) copies of the original works. The only way a karaoke song would not be illegal would be if the song either isn't copyrighted in the first place (and I doubt that many artists have explicitly freed their copyrights from their songs), or if they develop their own songs.
But what is the purpose of karaoke in the first place?
Karaoke could be considered as a way for an individual or a group to be able to enjoy the music in a way other than what the original artist has intended.
The thing with music is that unlike visual art -- which is an individual expression of oneself -- it isn't just an art, it's a cultural expression. Our ancestors used music as a means to communicate with their gods (and even today is seen in religious music). Singing was also a tool in society for many other events, like serenading, group gatherings (like in celebrating the new harvest or a war victory), etc.
In medieval times, there were the bards. Although most, if not all, would have at least one original composition, I'm convinced that there would be "common songs" (popular music in our day) that, regardless of who originally composed it, would be performed in all taverns and other public places, and these songs people would enjoy the most because they're familiar with them.
While the copyright laws would protect the modern artist's original works, it does not, in any way, stop the original uses of music in our society. It's just that since we are less communal and more globally interconnected, we get to hear a lot of various songs and music... some of which would eventually be considered popular.
No matter how many people you'd have arrested or sued, you cannot stop people from singing your song especially if it's a popular title, because singing is a communal/social activity and not just a single artist's work. Karaokes just make it easier for the group because we can't always have a personal band at our beck-and-call.
- - - - -
What are the options of those who want to sing?
* create their own songs. The most legal thing to do. However, that takes a lot of time, effort, and dedication, something that most people aren't able to give for music.
* sing along to the original. If we're following the 10 Big Myths about copyright, singing along with the original is already illegal because it isn't included even in "fair use" (it's probably only legit if it's for non-profitable personal use, but I doubt). Worse, because there are TWO voices that compete with each other (original and sing-along), you're going to get a lot of noise complaints AND very likely not understand a thing about the song.
* get a cover band. Really, if the cover band memorizes the tune then plays it, they're probably violating copyright anyway because they copied the original song's tune and played it without the original artist's permission (don't tell me there are many cover bands that actually wait for an artist's consent before they can play the music).
* get a minus one. This gets a little technical, because there ARE artists that release minus ones (or voiceless versions) of their albums. If there would be any cover band that would record what they play, it's technically a voiceless version of an artist's song, and can probably be legal bait.
* go karaoke. Technically illegal but for most it's one of the cheapest ways to enjoy the music without having to go through the trouble of purchasing sound systems, looking for minus ones or cover bands, and trying to calm down disgruntled neighbors.
* sing acapella (no music). Illegal without permission in the sense that, even if you don't have the background music, you're still singing the artist's song (same lyrics, same tune).
- - - - -
If you think about it, American Idol and other singing contests should be sued for copyright infringement; most of the songs sung by those who auditioned are contemporary (pop/popular), and I'm pretty certain none of those who auditioned even bothered to ask permission from the original artists to sing their songs.
- - - - -
If we're talking about artists in the province/state, copyrighting is easy to work with. But for international artists, you can't expect them to be distracted 24/7 just because half of the six billion people in the world today want to sing their song in contests, in the shower, in karaoke bars, etc. can you?
Copying songs is bad, no doubt. But I think what singers (at least those whose interests aren't primarily financial) really want protection from is other people copying their songs AND labeling it as their own.
- - - - -
Point of my whole post?
Karaoke may be illegal, but you really can't stop the culture behind it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What an hysterical over reaction.
Bars have been paying ASCAP/BMI lisences forever. They are cheap as hell, like a penny times rated capacity per day. If a bar wants to have musical entertainment in any form at all they need a lisence.
THIS IS NOT NEW, its been this way for 50 years. If a bar is too cheap to pay a few hundred a year then thats their problem.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What BS, i mean it's karaoke. Half the time it's tarrable anyways
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I'm not a music artist...
Perhaps you should consider not being an artist if the life would be too hard for you....that's the way artist's of all walks have always lived... Music artists need to find other ways to support themselves other then large corporate labels that do a number of illegal moves as it is just to control the record industry..entertainment and tech are two of the largest industries in the world....and we still apply the american capitalist mentality that you see no where else...that the corporate must survive...In any other country
it's survival of the fittest...if you can't attract a fan base loyal enough...then why would anybody listen to or support you? If only 13-23 year old sorority girls love you...maybe you appeal to too narrow and too manufactured a genre..if only women past 40 listen to your Saxophone blowing michael bolton ass....maybe you're a worthless artist and should pick a new path.
More "Artists" in the music industry need to so much as truly write their own music and not rely on industry legends to hold their prissy little hand. People who get into music to get rich or any art...are in it for the wrong reasons and turning on fans that may not be able to buy your crappy cd in the record store that's near them...because it's practicly owned by the big 5 labels. They control what the stores stock....it's illegal but they keep getting caught for it. So online pirating may be the only exposure you ever get...If you let fans know that you suspect them of disloyalty....they become disillusioned....I got to concerts of the bands I find through pirating...and I buy their shirts and cds at the show...what more money do I owe them? and that's best way I have of knowing the label gets as little as possible.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I am a musician. I hear music floating and record it. I share it. I perform it. And I enjoy the Hell out of everyone else's music.
Why don't MOST musicians understand that it's the publishing companies who are screwing the musicians who want/need to make money? When I see royalty figures of $.03-$.07 per download or $2 per $16 dollar CD it makes me laugh. Prince fights the good fight and publishes/distrubutes his own music. Atmosphere didn't sell his soul or his music (other than the distribution contract he signed - but so what?) - Who is the real enemy here? The Slaveowners or the people who buy or trade cotton?
It always made me laugh to see Lars (Metallica) whine about Napster - I bought at least 3 of his albums on cassette tape, so I feel justified to download "and Justice for All" anytime I want to because I believe in filesharing is the best way to reach new listeners. How many units did Metallica sell? 100 million? 400 million? Well guess what... they didn't reach MOST of the population on this planet. They fell short by about 5 billion. But after filesharing blewup there were hundreds of thousands of new listeners who bought concert tickets to see Metallica in Brazil, Europe, Austrailia - many of whom took home t-shirts.
The days of going multi-platinum are over and it's not the fault of the casual fan who shares files or mix-tapes. It's the greedy record/publishing companies who charge $16 (as much as any DVD) and only give their artists burger money for each unit sold. Just because they don't have the courage to stand up to big money/corporation doesn't mean that they should go home and beat their wives/fans for not giving it up.
The same goes with politics or religion.
Fight the right fight, not the distractions.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hey "someartist"!
I agree with copyright laws, but don't you make enogh money off the SALE of the CD, movie,whatever? Then there is air play radio stations pay for, movies that are PAID for at theaters and on VHS, DVD,etc. Oh, and jukeboxes pay their fees also. I'm sure there are several other forms of fee collection. Most bars that have karaoke do so because they CAN'T AFFORD live entertainment! They are just trying to get by. Just like Rodney King,,,"Can't we all just get along?"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, isn't the old line. "any publicity is good publicity"? This sounds like jealousy that somebody else is making a buck. What do artists in any genre believe drive concert and cd sales? It's gettting your name and product out there, if you're depending on broadcast radio, MTV and other dying media outlets then call Ed Sullivans people and see who they're booking
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
MN has spoken well. I think the real arguement is often missed.
I think that the somewhere in the middle of this arguement lies the best solution. Best from the point of view that music is somehow easily HEARD at little (not zero - but possibly zero dollars, ie radio) cost to the general music-lover, while still benefiting the artist. someartist has a some good arguments, artists have to make money to survive and continue to expand their art. (Although historically artists never made much money, thats a new thing)
The real problem here is that right now the middle of this argument are the players that are making the most money. They provide distribution and marketing and they get the rewards. So obviously they are fighting hard to stop change.
Problem is they are also brainwashing the struggling artist into believing that they are struggling because the world is stealing. They don't want a solution to be found that doesn't involve them.
The solution is difficult, but as MN has pointed out - how many new fans might metallica have because of downloads? How long is it going to take before lots of artists are changing the industry by daring to be different? They might even find that there is even more money to be made than ever before.
Might bet would be on something like iTunes. If an artists could get 25c out of a 30c download, I bet everyone would be happy - except the labels. Of course that is never going to happen overnight as it takes a long time for a new marketing system to take over... but its slowly heppening. I already hear the "top 10 downloads" and "music from myspace".... and the RIAA is getting scared.
Idiots. They should be going to apple and myspace and saying "what can we do to help you create your business ... and an allegiance"
No doubt they slowly coming around and realizing, but they may have already screwed their chances.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Turn that down!
Before computers replaced radio DJ's, I worked at a radio station. We would routinely have a booth at every sport show, gun show, and home idea show. Some folks sold knives or bathroom tile. Our "product" was our on-air signal. But believe it or not, there was a period where we were not allowed to play our own station in our booth! That would have been a public performance... Never mind the astronomical ASCAP fees we paid annually already - they wanted more!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Dear MrPhoenix,
melody?, tempo?...
um ok then plz explain how "Weird Al" gotta away with it all these years?
a machine, a bar, original music and a joe sixpack performer...
Parody?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I think that the somewhere in the middle of th
Some good points Anonymous Coward. But the real problem is that the masses (people reading this kind of article) are getting up in arms and ready to do battle with the "bad guys". The "bad guys" as you describe them, are the middlemen in the music industry and, yes, they have turf and $$$ to protect. But if battle is waged and won against them, all the artists lose too. People like me won't have a way to stay with their work because they'll have to get other employment just to survive. Not much room to be inspired to make new art when you're working a full time job and no legendary artists got that way as part-time hobbyist artists....
See if the masses take a stand intending to defeat the corporate "bad guys" by fighting the "nasty" copyright laws back down to a point that there is no more protection for the artist, then all us little artists lose big time. The only artists that will be able to survive if that happens are going to be the ones with sponsors and patrons (you know the ones being pushed by the big name/big bucks labels and agencies) or worse, the "artists" born to massive wealth (here we go with the "artist" called Paris Hilton again...).
If this happens it will be a future sort of like back to the future only it will really be more like back to the past. Like when all the painters and composers and sculptors (Renaissance and before) were sponsored (read controlled) by the churches. They had to do as they were told, make work that pleased the patrons (church hierarchy) in order to get money in exchange so they could survive and still do their work.
If copyright law is repealed or whittled away, all of us little guys --- the ones who just barely make a living wage by the sweat of our brow, creating new work, selling it, keeping our books,studios, websites, advertising campaigns, etc. in order (business/office work that must acompany even art), keeping in touch with our customers/galleries/etc, trying to stay inspired for more new work, learning new tools and techniques, issuing limited editions/copies of our best selling work to generate a bit more income to plump our paltry bottom line --- all of us little guys will not be able to make it.
Without copyright protection, anyone will be able to legally take our work and use it for advertising to promote their business and we'll get paid 0. We won't be able to sell limited or open editions because someone else with more money and a bigger global presence (read big$$$ corporations, probably the same ones you hate for making all the $$$ now) will get ahold of a copy of our work and mass produce copies and be able to dominate the market, effectively cheating us out of part of our income stream. We won't be able to fight any of these copyright thieves because the laws and courts won't back us up and once the thieves know they face no penalty for taking our work and profitting from it, they'll only accelerate their thievery and the carnage will be a lot of "dead" artists. Artists, who right now bring you beautiful paintings, sculptures, metal work, glass and stone work, photography, music and literature, plays, movies and more.
So the real problem is that people who are incensed over the music industry copyright enforcement issues are so mad they are forgetting that there are MANY other artists who are of value to society who will be hurt terribly by repealing copyright laws.
So before you go thinking copyright law is unnecessary and only benefits the big corporate machine, remember that MANY small time artists of real talent and value need copyright law to survive. I'm talking about regular joes like the guy down the street from you who writes books all day in his home office sometimes putting in 80 hour weeks without benefits for the love of his craft and all on speculation that he'll sell enough to survive. Or the woman on the next block who paints and sells her original stuff at art fairs or galleries and also sells prints online. Or the small time photographer who has a little at home studio and shoots families and kids and relies upon them buying prints to make a living. Or the small time local musician who cuts his own CDs and sells them to local stores, tries to get his stuff played on the underground radio station and plays every weekend at the local coffeehouse. All those people need strong copyright laws to help them make a living.
Please don't forget that copyright affects much more than just the corporations that are convenient to hate in this issue. It is a matter of life and death for art and for those who make that art who are not yet at the very very top rungs of the art world. Just remember that in a world without the "regular joe" artists, we'll have only the Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan type of artist -- those which are either born rich or who have by luck (and usually little talent) convinced one of the big "machine" corporations to put them on a promotion fast track. Like I said before, I hope I die before that ever happens....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Dear MrPhoenix,
Yeah dml337ira, Weird Al has "gotten away" with it for years because what he does is considered parody. That's where you make a joke out of something - it's not just a derivative version (like karaoke is), it's intent is to make a joke not be a version of the original. Parody is allowed under Fair Use doctrines of the copyright laws....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ideas
next thing you know they'll start going after those of you who sing outloud as you listen to your iPods. After all, if you're outside, it is a "public performance." Stop giving them ideas.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Where do we go from here?
Ok, everytime this kind of article is posted everyone bitches about it for 3-4 days then it dies and no change is made. That makes us about as helpful as a condom in a tack factory. How do we make an improvement? How can we change the system for the better, so everyone wins?
Right now I dont' have the cash or time to run it but I'd like to see someone start a wiki project so we can constructively dialogue about this issue and perhaps develop some new business models. Who knows, maybe a music exec will get wind of the site, check us out and like our ideas.
I think it's about time that we stop complaining and take some action to change the situation.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What a bunch of cheap whiney dickless homos.
Here is a thought, you don't want to pay royalties? Then start writing and recording songs yourself. You pissed off about the labels taking too much of the profit? Then distribute it yourself over the internet.
No one forces you to do anything, go out and do it yourself. Course, all the brilliant minds here will tell you how to do it, and then not want to pay for it anyway, but whatever.
So many posts, so little true information. Yeah, they are going to stop you from singing along while you walk down the street.
I really love all these idiots who think they have the answer. Here is a clue, if your idea is so great, why don't you become a record executive. Since you have the answers, you will make millions.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Just Plain Stupid
While "someartist" is right about artists needing their pay check just like anyone else, since the copyright holder has agreed to have their music placed on a karaoke CD, they have, in my mind, intrincically