Chinese Government Censors Back On Their Karoake Song Banlist Bullshit

from the I'd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing-government-approved-songs-only dept

The perpetual motion machine that is the Chinese government's censorship arm rolls on. While China has embraced a particularly state-focused form of capitalism, it still engages in the sort of stuff long associated with the Chinese government, like mass censorship, government corruption, and the mass incarceration of undesirable citizens.

Taking a brief break from its strongarm takeover of Hong Kong -- a project that's running decades ahead of schedule -- the government is (again) imposing its will on presumably drunken participants in the world's worst party game, karaoke. (h/t Sarah McLaughlin)

China is set to ban karaoke songs that contain "illegal content", its Ministry of Culture and Tourism has announced.

Songs that fall under this category include those that endanger national unity, sovereignty or territorial integrity.

Songs that aren't sufficiently celebratory will apparently be whisked away to songwriting camps in order to infuse the lyrics with the appropriately pro-government sentiments.

Those who provide content to karaoke venues have been urged to review the songs and flag up to the ministry those that are potentially harmful.

Actually, it may be karaoke providers being whisked away if they're not providing uplifting melodies celebrating the many triumphs of the Chinese government, each one more triumphant than the last. (But not so triumphant they overshadow past triumphs, lest citizens find themselves not celebrating their historic betters by singing along in a "what have you done for me lately" fashion.)

One of the many, many triumphs of the Chinese government is its past victories over the impetuousness of ineptly-sung versions of popular tunes. No doubt many new songs have been written about the Chinese government's defeat of the old standby [squints at news report] "Fart."

China has banned 120 songs from the Internet after deeming them “harmful” to society.

[...]

The offending titles – all Chinese songs – included “No Money No Friend,” “Don’t Want To Go To School,” and “One Night Stand.”

A popular MC Hotdog song, which includes the line ‘I don’t love Chinese women, I love Taiwanese girls’ was blacklisted, as was a song named “Fart” that included the lyrics: “There are some people in the world who like farting while doing nothing.”

As "Fart" goes, so goes the great nation. The new crackdown shifts culpability to karaoke content providers and away from venue operators. Given the expansive nature of some of these collections (upwards of 100,000 songs), the government felt it more appropriate to fine/jail/beat into submission those holding the songbooks, rather than those hosting the songbook-holders.

Incredibly ironically, the expanded ban targets songs that "incite ethnic hatred." As has been reported multiple times, ethnic hatred is one of the things the Chinese government is really good at, so it seems somewhat self-defeating to discourage people from celebrating one of the government's mainstays: the repeated oppression of its own citizens because of their religious beliefs.

Then there's this, which would be completely comical if it weren't coming from a government that defines the phrase "abuse of power."

A central song list would be created by the ministry for karaoke venues…

It almost sounds like a fun job! The sort of job someone could do in five hours a week while collecting a 40-hour paycheck, troubled only by the occasional "investigative" trip to the local karaoke bar.

If nothing else, the new ban list will provide a bump for artists whose songs have been officially ostracized. Nothing calls attention to "unapproved" music like a list of unapproved songs for citizens to hunt down, listen to, and perhaps belt out into the nearest microphone.

Filed Under: bans, censorship, china, free speech, karaoke

97 Las Vegas Karaoke Locations Sued By 'Righthaven Of Trademarks' Demanding $500 Million

from the why-not-copyright? dept

Steve Green, who was the absolute best reporter covering the Righthaven saga, recently wrote about the fact that 97 Las Vegas karaoke providers were recently sued by a company called Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp., which apparently mainly does business as "Sound Choice," selling various karaoke content -- music and videos. Green notes that someone familiar with Slep-Tone has called it the "Righthaven of trademark infringement," though there are clearly some differences. First, though, the similarities: like many intellectual property "troll" operations, it appears that the goal of these efforts is to pressure companies into settlements, rather than actually get a judgment from the court. This has become an unfortunately common business model, where companies with a claim over some IP sue a ton of others at once mainly just to put pressure on them to "settle" for some amount -- often significantly less than what it threatens in the letter. And, it appears that Slep-Tone has at least some history of filing these kinds of mass lawsuits against a ton of defendants at once.

Of course, there are also lots of differences with Slep-Tone, in that it actually makes a product -- even if it's a somewhat silly and potentially obsolete product. I was a bit confused by the original article, because it never made clear what the actual trademark in question was -- and reading through some other lawsuits, it appears to be on the "Sound Choice" name and possibly logo, which is often displayed on the karaoke videos it produces. The other thing that confused me for a bit was why this was a trademark dispute, rather than a copyright dispute. After all, the key claim is that these karaoke locations were copying the content -- the music and the videos -- for use in karaoke machines, so shouldn't there be a copyright claim? But then it hit me: this is karaoke -- meaning that Slep-Tone probably doesn't hold the copyrights to the music in question in the first place. While it likely licenses the music for its karaoke productions, that license wouldn't necessarily give it the right to pursue others for copyright infringement on the music. Not knowing where it gets the videos from, I have no idea if there's a copyright issue there too, but it doesn't look like the lawsuits make any kind of copyright claim at all. Instead, they seem to focus on the use of the logo in the video to suggest trademark infringement -- which seems like an interesting way to get around the lack of copyright for copied content.

That said, again reading through some previous efforts -- and rulings (pdf) -- lends credence to the idea that these are questionable "trollish" claims in the first place. For example, in that ruling, linked above, the judge grants a summary judgment against Slep-Tone for failing to show any real evidence that its trademark was actually infringed on in the case. Instead, the company seems to rely on some very vague statements to claim infringement where none may exist:

While the Court sympathizes with Slep-Tone's claim that counterfeiting is a rampant problem that has devastated the karaoke industry, Slep-Tone has failed to direct the Court's attention to any evidence in the record tending to show either unauthorized use of the SOUND CHOICE marks, or that any of the allegedly infringing material originated with Defendants. In its response... Slep-Tone relies exclusively for evidence of unauthorized evidence of unauthorized use by Defendants on the affidavits of [two former employees of the defendant and one "purported expert"]... [None of these affidavits] establish any such facts. Instead, they provide vague and conclusory statements without foundation.

Whether or not Slep-Tone has a legitimate claim, it seems like we're seeing more and more of these kinds of cases -- using patents, copyrights and trademarks to bring mass lawsuits against a number of companies who may or may not infringe, where the goal often appears to be to push for settlements for a few thousand dollars (often cheaper than defending the lawsuit). It seems like this is a form of abuse of the judicial system, effectively relying on the threat of an expensive trial as a weapon to pressure companies (and, in some cases, though not in the above cases, individuals) into settling and just paying up to avoid the hassle and expense.

I'm not sure what the solution is to these kinds of lawsuits, but it seems worth calling out just how common these kinds of activities are becoming. IP holders using the "threat" of a lawsuit as a key component of a business model seems like a serious problem both for defendants in those lawsuits, as well as the public, which funds the courts through taxes. I'd be interested in ideas for ways to prevent this kind of abuse of the judicial system, where the key role of the courts is merely to act as "the heavy" in a "business model." That feels a little too much like a traditional protection racket.

Filed Under: karaoke, sound choice, trademark
Companies: righthaven, slep-tone

Bar Fight! Sony Sues Karaoke Distributor For Infringement; Gets Sued Right Back For 'Copyright Misuse'

from the winner-determined-via-sing-off-at-the-holiday-inn-express-lounge-starting-at-10 dept

A great many drinkers have watched helplessly as their BAC became inversely proportionate to their common sense, throwing around cash as thought it were Monopoly money before grabbing the mic to belt out Adele's latest track. Karaoke has been the go-to bar sport for thousands of people who feel the only thing keeping them back from superstardom is sobriety. It's a proven money-maker, but does it make ridiculously large damages-type money? Sony/ATV sure thinks so:

[O]ne manufacturer and distributor of karaoke discs [KTS] has just taken Sony/ATV Music Publishing to California federal court to get a declaration that it doesn't owe $1.28 billion for 6,715 acts of alleged infringement. The plaintiff not only wants to limit its liability, but also is seeking to punish the music publisher for unfair trade practices.

Sure, karaoke is lucrative, but $1.28 billion? From one manufacturer? And how about those damages -- $190,618 per violation? How does Sony get to this number? By going back to the well over and over and over and over. And they're not the only ones in line.

The use of the original music as the background score requires a license over the master recording. The use of the song composition requires a mechanical license too. When songs are performed in public, that requires payment to a PRO like ASCAP or BMI. When the music is matched to video images, it requires a synchronisation license. And if the lyrics are being republished, that might require an additional fee too.

Standard operating procedure for karaoke manufacturers is to hire their own lineup to play the hits, thus dodging higher royalty fees by paying a mechanical license for the cover versions. Obviously, this makes financial sense considering the sheer number of tunes required to run a karaoke business, not to mention the fact that it's frequently multiple mechanical licenses. You'd think Sony would be wary of shutting down a steady income stream. But a good thing can always become a better thing with the addition of lawyers and improbable maths, amiright? Not so fast, say KTS (also via lawyers):

In KTS' lawsuit two weeks ago, the company alleges that Sony is committing copyright misuse by attempting to collect multiple damage awards on a single work from the upstream producers, the downstream users (bars and restaurants), and KTS, the packager/distributor. KTS believes this alleged bullying "scheme" is unlawful.

In its lawsuit, KTS says that Sony/ATV has long since known about its operation, and rather than take reasonable steps to stop such products at the source, the defendant has: "instead committed copyright misuse by seeking to secure multiple license fees for the same allegedly infringed work by suing each link on the distribution chain, by demanding license fees for licensed goods and by attempting to obtain more than one statutory damage award for the continuing infringement (i.e., down stream distributions of the infringing work) of a SINGLE WORK."

This declaration only succeeded in irritating the music giant, which like many major labels finds itself easily angered in this "post-Napster" environment. Sony wants both damages and an injunction against KTS. KTS wants Sony to be realistic and to honor licenses paid by distributors instead of shoving all of its hands into KTS' wallet over and over again.

KTS wants a declaration that Sony is only eligible for one statutory award per work, which would trim the nearly $1.3 billion that Sony allegedly says it is due, but perhaps just as importantly, the karaoke manufacturer is bringing a bold copyright misuse claim that seeks to punish the publisher for trying to "recover multiple times for the same allegedly infringing conduct at rates greater than if the claims had been asserted against the manufacturers."

We'll see how this shakes out, but I have a feeling that Sony may be willing to slaughter one of its few remaining cash cows (you know, where people are still paying for music -- music not even performed by the original artists) on the altar of infringement, rather than settle for lower mechanical license fees. When all you have is sales declines, everything looks like a lawsuit.

Filed Under: copyright, karaoke
Companies: kts, sony, sony/atv

Sing Along: Karaoke Night With 14 Songs Costs Tucson Restaurant... $49,000 In BMI Fees

from the sing-along,-everyone dept

mrharrysan was the first of a few to send in this story of a restaurant in Tucson, Arizona, that just lost a lawsuit and must pay almost $49,000 for 14 BMI songs that were played at a karaoke night held at the restaurant. It was a default judgment, as the restaurant owners apparently did not respond to the lawsuit and failed to show up. The owners claim they responded to the lawsuit, but there appears to be no evidence of that (the court never received a response). Based on this, the owners clearly deserve their share of responsibility in what appears to be a decision to ignore this. The claim that:

"We answered the complaint, but they (BMI) wanted us to do ridiculous stuff. Our attorney said to take it to court and see where it goes."

also doesn't make much sense. If their attorney said to take it to court, they (perhaps... just a suggestion) should have showed up in court. They now claim they'll appeal, but not showing up for the original case was a huge mistake. Separately, they claim that the karaoke night was run by a third party contractor that was "properly licensed" with BMI and ASCAP, but I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. If I remember correctly, it's the venue that needs the license, not anyone doing the entertaining.

That said, there's still plenty of ridiculousness to go around on the BMI side. BMI has been bullying anyone hosting karaoke nights for a while now, so it's got the process down. However, $49,000 for 14 songs seems ridiculous -- and anyone with any sense of reality would admit that. Not BMI. It's spokesperson, Jerry Bailey indicated to the reporter covering the story that the restaurant was lucky BMI didn't push for $30,000 per song, since it could ask for that much.

And, of course, BMI could admit that the $49,000 for 14 songs is ridiculous and agree to let the restaurant pay a smaller, but reasonable sum, and move on, but it's not doing that either. Instead, Bailey highlights how its shakedown specialists are good at collecting on these judgments:

"It's definitely about the money as well as the judgment," Bailey said. "We will take appropriate steps to secure the judgment. This is not new to us. We are experienced in this area. Our attorneys know what to do."

Yes, the shakedown business is a good one, and BMI has lots of experience in it.

Filed Under: collections, copyright, karaoke
Companies: bmi

EA Has To Back Off Sims Karaoke Due To Licensing Problems

from the yay,-royalties dept

It's been quite a difficult time lately for various online music efforts. Pandora on the verge of shutting down, Muxtape already shut down and now EA is apparently scaling back its online Sims On Stage karaoke offerings over a vague, but unexplained, song licensing issue. How dare people sing along online? You get the feeling that the recording industry would go after people singing in the shower if they could.

Filed Under: karaoke, licensing, music, royalties, sims
Companies: ea