Directly from SBI President on Karaoke Downloads

[Singyoassoff]

Seriously, so many of you are like a dog with a rag in it's mouth. You just can't let go of a controversy that doesn't even exist.

Media shifting is already codified in the current copyright laws thanks to recent responses from the Congressional Committe on Copyright and prior precedent including a recent RIAA defeat in Federal Court owing to interpretation of a 27 year old U.S. Supreme Court Decision.

For the LAST TIME people: there is no gray area only persons with gray intentions.

People with gray intentions land in court. For the most part, the courts simply cleanse their eyes and show them the true color of the area they are in.

I have not read the responses and decisions of which you speak. I would appreciate it if you could provide links or citing references. I may be incorrect, but I believe the decisions were concerning "fair use" in a non-commercial setting.

Sound Choice's stance is that commercial use can never be fair use. The opposing argument is that while commercial use cuts against fair use, it is only one factor of several to consider.

Until a court or the legislature deals with the specific issue (whether the use of 1-1 shifted karaoke files in a commercial environment constitutes fair use) directly, it is not "black and white;" thus it is a grey area.

If I am missing contrary authority, please point me to it.

PS - If your comment about "professional" in your earlier post was not a jab at me, I apologize for my earlier response. I quit smoking a few days ago and have been a bit grouchy lately. I may have misread it.

 

[c. staley]

in this one, are you saying that the manus have to prove that i did not have the right to use the tracks on my drive, but not having discs or receipts is not a valid method? However, "product wear or destruction does not revoke my right which remains in it's non-transferrable archive." i could say all my discs were destroyed in the fire in my garage, and they can do nothing about it? there must be some way to protect their rights, but it seems every method has been shown to be "bad" (i can not find the word i am looking for here).
"If the manufacturers can not prove that the track in question is pirated - they do not have legal standing on the Trademark issue." what way COULD they prove it if audits, not having the original media, or proof of paying for the tracks are not acceptable as proof of piracy?

Okay, let me ask you this and you can choose only one:

[ ] I purchased "discs" from manufacturers than can wear out or be destroyed and if they are worn out, scratched or destroyed it effectively revokes my rights entirely.

[ ] I purchased "songs" or "musical recordings" from manufacturers and the compact disc was simply the container they used to deliver them to me. I have the right to use this music no matter what the delivery method is.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

I do not understand your premise that a 1-1 media shift releases the original manu from licensing responsibility and places said responsibility on the KJ. Your source for this is...?

I do not understand your premise that a 1-1 media shift changes ANY of the rights or responsibilities for ANY parties. Your source for this is...?


I'm not an IP attorney, and this is not legal advice.

Ok, we have a misunderstanding here. The part of what I posted in regard to ripping legally owned discs was in the context of a supposition, and part seems to have caused an interspersement of "legal use" versus "ownership responsibility"


I will try to clarify.

Keep in mind that I am not an IP lawyer- but I do consult with them.

1) In regard to legally purchased original mfrs. discs ripped to a PC HD, and that PC used in a show:

Technically, the product that has been altered from standard CD+G to MP3 is no longer the mfrs. product, simply because it is no longer the same product-period. The KJ is responsible for all licensing and use of the files that he CREATED in his PC.

On the other hand -LEGALLY- owning the original mfrs. discs, even if not using them, should offer some protection from Trademark Infringement, or piracy charges, as the karaoke companies bear some responsonsibility for making the discs in the first place. However, if the Publishers/Owners of the actual music get involved ( not the karaoke companies), then the USE OF THE PC COULD leave the KJ open to Copyright Infringement. Once again, this is only assuming the publishers/owners would ever bother to go after individual hosts.


2) Download Based shows: Kind of like the above, but without any of the protections gained by owning the mfrs. original discs. Also, while licensing is implied by the original discs, no such implication exists for downloads. If a site says "for home use only", they are only covering themselves. If a host downloads this product and uses it for their show, they have broken the rules of use set by the site, the site is free of responsibility, and all legal responsibility lays on the host.

They can do this because the host does not possess any original product- only their own download.

Also, as already stated, no licensing currently exists for U.S. based download show. If you see a site, say, the Karaoke Channel, and it says legal for professional use, double check the origin of the site. If it's not U.S. based, then that legality only extends to that site base's legal jurisdiction. Also look long and hard for "legal for professional use in the U.S"

 

[JoeChartreuse]

For someone who doesn't care, you certainly take every opportunity to loudly proclaim that SC is illegally marketing and selling their own products in the US.

The statement above is false on many levels. First, and most importantly, my post about marketing and selling in the U.S. was in parentheses and ended in a question mark.

The reason for that was that it was a "what if" post, in regard to information ( new to me) about the import deadline. At that point, I wasn't even yet sure whether the deadline ever existed, so I sure as hell didn't know about SC.

I asked, I didn't state.

I also now see that the direction at which I was was aiming many of my posts seems to have been confused by many. I will start a new thread to clarify.

 

[Paradigm Karaoke]

Okay, let me ask you this and you can choose only one:

[ ] I purchased "discs" from manufacturers than can wear out or be destroyed and if they are worn out, scratched or destroyed it effectively revokes my rights entirely.

[ ] I purchased "songs" or "musical recordings" from manufacturers and the compact disc was simply the container they used to deliver them to me. I have the right to use this music no matter what the delivery method is.

thats a tough one, and is the question at hand. i am not an IP attorney nor do i have one on retainer to consult with so i am not sure which one of those applies. there are arguments on both sides that i bought a musical recording, and that i bought a disc. that is why i have not used this particular argument, because i do not know the answer. my question to you however still is...n this one, are you saying that the manus have to prove that i did not have the right to use the tracks on my drive, but not having discs or receipts is not a valid method? However, "product wear or destruction does not revoke my right which remains in it's non-transferrable archive." i could say all my discs were destroyed in the fire in my garage, and they can do nothing about it? there must be some way to protect their rights, but it seems every method has been shown to be "bad" (i can not find the word i am looking for here).
"If the manufacturers can not prove that the track in question is pirated - they do not have legal standing on the Trademark issue." what way COULD they prove it if audits, not having the original media, or proof of paying for the tracks are not acceptable as proof of piracy?

you have as of yet to answer a single question i have asked, and even the ones just asking you to expound on your thought a bit more so i can understand your stance better. every question is just spun back around and shot back at me with another question but even in this instance, i did not attack you at all, i asked if i was correct in my understanding of your post and for you to expound on what methods YOU feel WOULD be acceptable as i do not see any other options and i thought with your statements in the post, you may know one i did not think of.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

"If the manufacturers can not prove that the track in question is pirated - they do not have legal standing on the Trademark issue.".

Just tossing this in: If the mfrs. cannot prove U.S. licensing, then they ALSO have no legal standing ( in the U.S) on the Trademark issue.

Not directed at the mfrs., but KJs who don't know this....

 

[Singyoassoff]

Okay, let me ask you this and you can choose only one:

[ ] I purchased "discs" from manufacturers than can wear out or be destroyed and if they are worn out, scratched or destroyed it effectively revokes my rights entirely.

[ ] I purchased "songs" or "musical recordings" from manufacturers and the compact disc was simply the container they used to deliver them to me. I have the right to use this music no matter what the delivery method is.

IMHO:

If I purchased the music on an actual "disc," the original disc itself is the "license" to use the music contained on the disc. If the discs are worn out, scratched or destroyed it does not affect my rights as long as I still have enough of the disc left in my possession to prove ownership. If I do not have enough of the disc in my possession to prove ownership, I must delete the media shifted file.

I have several old spotlight discs that are in various stages of "decay;" however I believe I can still use the content in a 1-1 media shift. It is obvious what the discs are, and they are in my possession -- scratched, cracked or shattered as they may be.

If I purchased downloads direct from manus and from authorized distributors and I may use them as long as I keep my record of the transaction, do not transfer ownership, and maintain a 1-1 relationship.

I'm not an IP attorney, and this is NOT legal advice.

 

[c. staley]

IMHO:

If I purchased the music on an actual "disc," the original disc itself is the "license" to use the music contained on the disc.

You didn't pick one.... you picked both...

So if your receipt for a downloaded track is lost you've effectively lost your rights, is this what you are saying?

 

[Bazza]

You didn't pick one.... you picked both...

Why must they be mutually exclusive?

 

[Guest]

I have not read the responses and decisions of which you speak. I would appreciate it if you could provide links or citing references. I may be incorrect, but I believe the decisions were concerning "fair use" in a non-commercial setting.

Sound Choice's stance is that commercial use can never be fair use. The opposing argument is that while commercial use cuts against fair use, it is only one factor of several to consider.

Until a court or the legislature deals with the specific issue (whether the use of 1-1 shifted karaoke files in a commercial environment constitutes fair use) directly, it is not "black and white;" thus it is a grey area.

If I am missing contrary authority, please point me to it.

PS - If your comment about "professional" in your earlier post was not a jab at me, I apologize for my earlier response. I quit smoking a few days ago and have been a bit grouchy lately. I may have misread it.

Look, you may think I'm mean and nasty. I just call it exactly the way I see it - and 95% of everything that divides people is personal rather than factual. So try not to take this as some personal attack (neither of us has enough valid personal information to do that) and instead siimply consider the surface (facts) of what you have presented me with:

1.) You admit you have never reviewed the law or cases relevent to this issue.
2.) You cite SC as an authority on law they didn't write, precedent they didn't set, and information you yourself don't bother to review or follow.
3.) You are incorrectly asserting your lack of knowlegde to be a lack of existing case law.
4.) You are now relying on the opinions of me and other people to instruct you in that which you won't bother to study yourself.

My comments about what constitutes "professional" where not aimed at any one person in particular but, in all rhetorical sincerety: are you not now making an extraordinary effort to slip your foot into that shoe?

 

[c. staley]

Why must they be mutually exclusive?

Because they inherently are mutually exclusive.

Did you lease the Gem Series for the "discs" that hold the songs or the "songs" you can transfer to your hard drive?

You leased the songs... not the discs.... Even your own agreement states you don't own the discs and they won't sue you when you transfer them to a hard drive.

 

[Singyoassoff]

You cite SC as an authority on law they didn't write, precedent they didn't set, and information you yourself don't bother to review or follow.

Really? Please point me to that. If I remember correctly, I pointed out two sides to an argument.

 

[Paradigm Karaoke]

Is this directed to me or Proformance?
that was a bit confusing, me, quoting you, quoting me, quoting Pro......i was asking you.



If this is directed to me, then please send your questions via PM, I'm not avoiding anything other than itchy trigger fingers.

i am not asking for your feelings on Joe or Bazza or anything like that, or even on CB or SC etc. you said solution "A" was no good, i just asked what solution "B" is, nothing to get you in trouble. i am asking about what you posted right here in front of everybody. you asked me a question for an answer and got it, every time. am i not deserving of the same respect?

 

[c. staley]

i am not asking for your feelings on Joe or Bazza or anything like that, or even on CB or SC etc. you said solution "A" was no good, i just asked what solution "B" is, nothing to get you in trouble. i am asking about what you posted right here in front of everybody. you asked me a question for an answer and got it, every time. am i not deserving of the same respect?

Ooookkkkaayyy..... so what is the question?

(just don't ask me to provide a solution to the mfg's problems... they've got their business hurtles, I've got mine)

 

[Paradigm Karaoke]

actually, after looking back over the posts, i got myself turned around and should have asked this question of Pro instead as he made the original post. i'm sorry Chip, my mistake. :embarrassedpill:

 

[possumdog]

So isn't the point that these companies have no problem with us spending our money with them different from the point that was brought up elsewhere that said it was illegal for them to export their product to the US?

 

[starzkj]

In my opinion this has run it's course and gone well off track and now gotten to the point where I personally feel many are on the edge (and beyond) of violating terms of service. Respect has gone out window.. My purpose was to post the written statements from the companies offering downloads that nothing in their terms were meant to keep customers from using their tracks in hosting of shows. I ask the moderators to close this thread as I personally see no one listening to any opinions but their own.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

In my opinion this has run it's course and gone well off track and now gotten to the point where I personally feel many are on the edge (and beyond) of violating terms of service. Respect has gone out window.. My purpose was to post the written statements from the companies offering downloads that nothing in their terms were meant to keep customers from using their tracks in hosting of shows. I ask the moderators to close this thread as I personally see no one listening to any opinions but their own.

Yup, this thread has certainly been hijacked to the icky side. To jump back on track, I will repeat:

While the karaoke mfrs. may not have any problem with someone using their downloads to run a show ( and why would they?) they simply do not have the LEGAL authority to authorize download based shows in the U.S. All they can do is promise that THEIR company will give you no trouble. Not the same as legally authorizing or licensing download use for a U.S. based KJ.

 

[c. staley]

Yup, this thread has certainly been hijacked to the icky side. To jump back on track, I will repeat:

While the karaoke mfrs. may not hve any problem with someone using their downloads to run a show ( and why would they?) they simply do not have the LEGAL authority to authorize download based shows in the U.S. All they can do is promise that THEIR compnay will give you no trouble. Not the same as legally authorizing or licensing download use for a U.S. based KJ.

However Joe,

Since the manufacturers sell to the 'general public' I believe it's pretty impossible for them to think that they can control the end use of their product.

Example:

#1. Customer buys a track online - with or withOUT graphics -

#2. Customer puts that track on a flashdrive or burns to a disc

#3. Customer takes that to a club and hands it to you to play.

Is this a violation?

 

[DJCC]

In my opinion this has run it's course and gone well off track and now gotten to the point where I personally feel many are on the edge (and beyond) of violating terms of service. Respect has gone out window.. My purpose was to post the written statements from the companies offering downloads that nothing in their terms were meant to keep customers from using their tracks in hosting of shows. I ask the moderators to close this thread as I personally see no one listening to any opinions but their own.

I agree, it has gone off track, I move several post to the derailed thread. I kept this thread open because I think it is still a good topic.