FYI, folks. Every time you sink enough Red Stripe to find the idea of waltzing up to your neighborhood bar's Karaoke machine intending to conjure a rousing "everybody sing-a-long!" version of "Hey Jude" to be logical, you're not just hurting yourself and others with your off-the-mark impressions of McCartney's Little Richard-channeling yelps. Hell, you're not even just hurting McCartney, either. Nope, your wounded caterwauling is pissing off the big guns. How big? Try SONY/ATV Music Publishing, asshole.
So before you pick up that stale beer-stenched mic, consider this: Sony/ATV, a.k.a. a GIANT music publishing company that owns the publishing rights to countless hot[t] jams, is suing karaoke companies and individuals(!) based in California, Korea, and the Cayman Islands for -- you guessed it -- copyright infringement and "unfair business practices." The publisher claims that more than 200 karaoke CD+G and SCG+D recordings are being used without proper licenses from the music publishers or their agents, which, naturally, violates our old friends, the U.S. Copyright laws. ("CD+G" and "SCG+D" recordings are re-recordings of hit songs either without the lead vocal or with a vocal track by sound-a-like singers. But you already knew that, didn't you? I thought everybody knew that...)
Anyway, the suit, filed in the federal District Court in Nashville (the place where Sony/ATV administers most of its catalog), names California-based Cavs USA, Aaron Han, Ace Karaoke, David Su, Nutech Digital (Karaoke Klub, Magic Tracks, Nutech Party Paks, Nutech Nikkodo), and Lee Kasper as defendants. Also invited to the conjecture party are Seoul-based Cavs Multimedia and the Cayman Islands-based Three Boys Ltd. So, you know, if any of these guys happens to handle your neighborhood's Wednesday night sing-a-long fixes, do us all a favor and stand clear!
So what's in a karaoke license anyway? Glad you asked! Here's the skinny, booze-bag: see, karaoke use generally requires a sort of holy trinity of permission: a synch license for graphical display of the lyrics, a mechanical license for reproducing the song, and (if lyrics are reprinted in a booklet, anyway) a print license. Sounds simple enough, right?
Now, most publishers generally grant all of these rights in a single, negotiated license with the various karaoke manufacturers and distributors (and yes, sadly, they ARE various, indeed). And this past January, a federal Court of Appeals in California held that a compulsory mechanical license does not include the right to graphically display or print lyrics for karaoke use. The companies must also obtain, brace yourselves now, a synch license from the music publisher at a negotiated rate.
The complaint claims that the defendants were involved in "manufacturing and distributing the unlicensed recordings in physical formats as well as online." It claims they also streamed unlicensed samples on websites. Richard Greenberg, president of the Nutech (you know, one of the defendants named in the suit?!? Sheesh, pay attention, bro), has stated that the company's counsel is reviewing the matter. He then prattles on rather ambiguously about how the suit involves a "variety of issues" that arose before the company was acquired by the current owners. Once they determine what went on, he says, the issues will be resolved. Sounds like he runs a very tight ship there, doesn't it?
Sony/ATV lists 201 songs allegedly infringed upon by the defendants, including the always-popular "Hey Jude," the mildly popular "Eleanor Rigby," the show-stopping "King of the Road," the pathetic "I'm a Believer," and the fairly lukewarm "I Should Have Known Better."
Oh yeah, and did I mention that the suit seeks an injunction and damages up to $150,000 per infringement??? Try putting THAT on your bar tab...
