Comments on: More On Galaxy Hut Karaoke

By: ClintJCL

ClintJCL — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:40:53 +0000

These are the same guys who threatened the Girl Scouts with paying licensing fees for singing campfire songs, and only dropped their threat because of the bad P.R. Now HOW exactly do they distribute the karaoke license fees? If Britney Spears "Hit Me Baby One More Time" is sung 100X more than Barry Manilow's "Coca Cabana", does the songwriter get 100X as much? I'm doubting it. I'm thinking Barry gets screwed.

By: Jane

Jane — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:40:15 +0000

I agree, karaoke is fun, that's why bars hire companies to come in and provide that service, but I actually work for a performing rights organization and I know how little it actually costs a bar/restaurant to license for the music that they have ... and I also know how many "middle men" AREN'T getting these fees, they actually DO go to the songwriter - not the performer - the songwriter. It doesn't work the same way that a record label works .... It's too bad that intellectual copyright isn't valued in this country, everybody thinks that music is free.

By: Ernest

Ernest — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:23:32 +0000

I disagree. The overwhelming majority of karaoke music (or jukebox one, for that matter) was made by the individuals ranging from quite comfortable to rich-beyond-avarice as it is. The copyright is primarily designed to provide for the numberless middleman rather than the actual artists.

This particular karaoke shutdown is an absurd. It was a fun night. Now what’s next? I purchase a CD and the next thing I know an enforcer comes knocking to extort extra money for my actually playing it?? I know, I know, we aren’t quite there yet but the way things are going it won‘t be long yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah... before they crucify us.

By: Jane

Jane — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:23:40 +0000

Actually, these fees dues are not determined by the "freelancers" at all. These are fees calculated by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC prior to these "freelancers" even going into the establishment. The only job of the "freelancer" is to hear the copyrighted works being played. And not all copyrighted music is "pop-trash", there are many jazz and classical songwriter members of all organizations. It is true you could simply only play music that is currently public domain, but there is also nothing wrong with supporting songwriters and new music, that is after all how many of them make any money at all, not off of record sales.

By: Ernest

Ernest — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:35:33 +0000

They should play classical instead. That would improve mass taste. Besides, no royalties to pay. To whom indeed? Vivaldi, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart?? The BMI could simply go fuck itself then. Who needs pop-trash when real music is available for free?

By: Angela Valdez

Angela Valdez — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:51:42 +0000

Actually, the dude from BMI told me the "freelancers" get paid for their time and expenses and nothing else. Don't know if that applies across the board.

By: Mike Licht

Mike Licht — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:02:02 +0000

I've been told that freelancers usually exaggerate the fees due, since they get paid on a percentage basis. That's why it's important to check their claims. I’m no fan of karaoke, but there you have it.