Jammie Thomas-Rasset hit with $1.5 in damages

[Paradigm Karaoke]

When we meet on Friday, can you please show me your "single user license" from Sound Choice? To the best of my knowledge, you are going to be presenting your originally purchased Sound Choice CDGs, which have no reference whatsoever to allowing you to copy the songs to a computer.

As a matter of fact, for the past three years, all SC discs are packaged with a slip of paper which states: "WARNING: Copying this disc or any Sound Choice song to a hard drive for commercial use without the proper permission or making multiple copies from a single disc or file constitutes willful infringement which may incur statutory damages of not less than $750 per song.

Call 1-800-788-4487 to speak to a Customer Service Representative about getting a discounted rate on our entire library so your business can be in compliance."

You will be asking that permission as a result of the audit and I understand have adjusted your library to meet the 1:1 requirement accordingly and therefore we will likely be granting you written permission to do the format shift provided you abide by our policies (basically continuing to meet the 1:1 rule). But don't be mistaken - you don't have that right or any "single user license" without our permission, which has not yet been granted.

Kurt, i am voluntarily agreeing to an audit of my library, no need to jump my ****. i am not fighting you, i was looking for an answer from Thunder

 

[c. staley]

Kurt, i am voluntarily agreeing to an audit of my library, no need to jump my ****. i am not fighting you, i was looking for an answer from Thunder

He does have a need. He wants to show you who is boss and impress upon you that the "audit" is not "voluntary," he wants it to be mandatory... IN MY OPINION.

You have to wonder why -for the last 3 years- the company that's been selling these discs with this "commercial use denial" slip of paper has that denial at all... Why would they possibly want to do that and how do they think they could possibly enforce that?

I have to wonder since it was Kurt Slep himself that said to me;

Originally Posted by Sound Choice
And what in the heck is wrong with a home user bringing in an Original CDG to play in your club - as long as you don't rip it and make an illegal copy?! I would think that a host would be glad that a singer was supplying his own songs (especially if they were obscure ones) - it would save on the KJs budget.

Uh, yeah. Right. Except for the last 3 years, the discs they have been selling are labeled "not for commercial use." So either you can or you can't - doublespeak at it's finest. Of course, there's one other possibility as well: Could it be that there is some question on the licensing of these songs?

In my opinion, I don't see why any karaoke disc supplier would want to restrict "where a home user" could "be a star" singing the music they've purchased. Seems to have some hidden agenda going on after all, this is simply "karaoke," not Madison Square Garden, Carnagie Hall or even any of the major broadcast networks.

 

[Guest]

Chip,

The Copyright Law expressly provides for compulsary licensing, so regardless of what SC prints on a disc - once it is published and made available for public consumption it's public performance becomes a statutory right subject only to any legally prescribed royalty.

If SC publishes music for which the have no permissions that liability is their own and does not pass the to the performers and KJs.

I have no legal obligation to get SC's permisssion before ripping my collection to a computer. If SC believes that until a court says otherwise they are the lord of all rights - then I personally volunteer to stay that court order. So, will someone point me in the direction of some relly cheap, used SC discs I can start my test case with?

 

[c. staley]

Chip,

The Copyright Law expressly provides for compulsary licensing, so regardless of what SC prints on a disc - once it is published and made available for public consumption it's public performance becomes a statutory right subject only to any legally prescribed royalty.

If SC publishes music for which the have no permissions that liability is their own and does not pass the to the performers and KJs.

I have no legal obligation to get SC's permisssion before ripping my collection to a computer. If SC believes that until a court says otherwise they are the lord of all rights - then I personally volunteer to stay that court order. So, will someone point me in the direction of some relly cheap, used SC discs I can start my test case with?

I certainly understand how the $15 compulsory license works for the sound recording... however that doesn't include the necessary licenses for lyric reprint or synchronization, etc. All of which are negotiated licenses and not compulsory or mandated. Consequently, SC issued the Eagles tracks with no graphics... a compulsory license only was needed.

I guess my question is "What's the point (or purpose) to place ANY restriction on where it can be used?" You'd think that SC would want lots of people to see their work and go out and buy their own copy. To restrict this product to "home use" is contradictory to marketing the very product they wish to sell, isn't it? Hmmm....

 

[Guest]

I certainly understand how the $15 compulsory license works for the sound recording... however that doesn't include the necessary licenses for lyric reprint or synchronization, etc. All of which are negotiated licenses and not compulsory or mandated. Consequently, SC issued the Eagles tracks with no graphics... a compulsory license only was needed.

None of that is your concern. The sync license is not the domain of the KJ. It's the producers liability and does not pass to the end user because these products are not commissioned works.

I guess my question is "What's the point (or purpose) to place ANY restriction on where it can be used?" You'd think that SC would want lots of people to see their work and go out and buy their own copy. To restrict this product to "home use" is contradictory to marketing the very product they wish to sell, isn't it? Hmmm....

There isn't any because, any product that you can use at home can be used in a venue so long as the authors are managed by your performing
rights agent (ASCAP, BMI, MPPA,) which includes any track a karaoke manu would bother to release.

"Not for commercial use" is an not an absolute statement. It is an abbreviated statement which means: "addtional licenses to perform this work publicly, duplicate for distribution or resale, create new or derivative recordings, must be acquired separately."

SC can pounce on people for making duplicate libraries from a single source but, responsible computer use is completely beyond the touch of his trademark claims and it's obvious that he knows that.

 

[c. staley]

None of that is your concern. The sync license is not the domain of the KJ. It's the producers liability and does not pass to the end user because these products are not commissioned works.

Absolutely, I agree. However the point is if they've not secured the proper licensing from the publishers then put their trademark on it with the statement; "Used by permission." How can they expect to receive any trademark protection on a product that should have never been produced in the first place?

There isn't any because, any product that you can use at home can be used in a venue so long as the authors are managed by your performing rights agent (ASCAP, BMI, MPPA,) which includes any track a karaoke manu would bother to release.

That would be true, however remember that they are suing for "trademark" and they would argue that it is that trademark off the disc that is not to be displayed in a commercial venue. It is a bit of a stretch, but that's never impeded anything before.

"Not for commercial use" is an not an absolute statement. It is an abbreviated statement which means: "addtional licenses to perform this work publicly, duplicate for distribution or resale, create new or derivative recordings, must be acquired separately."

Yes. However since it has been shown in previous filings that a direct charge of public performance was included. 10 years ago I requested this public performance because it was included in their lawsuits and while I did recieve such licenses from a few karaoke manufacturers - that specifically did not diminish or usurp the publishers rights - SC was not one of them.

SC can pounce on people for making duplicate libraries from a single source but, responsible computer use is completely beyond the touch of his trademark claims and it's obvious that he knows that.

Yep.

 

[Guest]

Absolutely, I agree. However the point is if they've not secured the proper licensing from the publishers then put their trademark on it with the statement; "Used by permission." How can they expect to receive any trademark protection on a product that should have never been produced in the first place?

Okay, so you request this proof in an interogatory and it turns out they have it - then what?

That would be true, however remember that they are suing for "trademark" and they would argue that it is that trademark off the disc that is not to be displayed in a commercial venue. It is a bit of a stretch, but that's never impeded anything before.

They know that argument won't fly in court, and all you have to do is find an advertisement in NC&B, DJ Times, or some other trade magazine, or perhaps the text from their own website and that argument is over.

Obviously Kurt is not so picky about what he says in chat rooms but, with enough rebuttals people will learn to be skecptical about the "almighty voice" of SC.

Yes. However since it has been shown in previous filings that a direct charge of public performance was included. 10 years ago I requested this public performance because it was included in their lawsuits and while I did recieve such licenses from a few karaoke manufacturers - that specifically did not diminish or usurp the publishers rights - SC was not one of them.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are describing. There is no performance royalty due the karaoke manufacturer - only to the songs original authors.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Originally posted by Sound Choice:


"You will be asking that permission as a result of the audit and I understand have adjusted your library to meet the 1:1 requirement accordingly and therefore WE will likely be granting you the permission to do the FORMAT SHIFT provided you abide by our policies (basically continuing to meet the 1:1 rule). But don't be mistaken - you don't have that right or any "single user license" without our permission, which has not yet been granted."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU will grant PERMISSION to do the FORMAT SHIFT?

You don't have the LEGAL right to do any such thing, as you yourself have stated several times, and as has CB.

What you MIGHT be doing is TELLING him that Sound Choice, and ONLY Sound Coice will not take any action because of the format shift.

The question is, will he even receive a legally binding document to that effect, or would this just be a non-binding verbal agreement or flyer leaving him open to problems down the road?

 

[c. staley]

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are describing. There is no performance royalty due the karaoke manufacturer - only to the songs original authors.

This is not a "royalty" at all. It's flat out permission to use their sound recording (sc's rendition) in a public venue. I understand the whole royalty bit, however this is in regard specifically to the re-recorded sound recording which has it own protection. SC has not only specifically denied it on the disc itself, but actually included it in a few of their lawsuits.

Kurt has never answered whether or not he retains any copyright protection since selling the catalog to Stingray Digital in Canada. He has stated that he "could add copyright" to a lawsuit which makes me wonder exactly what he did sell... His mention of "over the last 3 years" just happens to coincide with the statute of limitations for copyright.

 

[Guest]

You don't have the LEGAL right to do any such thing, [i.e.: grant permission to format-shift] as you yourself have stated several times, and as has CB.

He also doesn't have the legal authority to prohibit it.

 

[DannyGKaraoke]

This is not a "royalty" at all. It's flat out permission to use their sound recording (sc's rendition) in a public venue. I understand the whole royalty bit, however this is in regard specifically to the re-recorded sound recording which has it own protection. SC has not only specifically denied it on the disc itself, but actually included it in a few of their lawsuits.

Kurt has never answered whether or not he retains any copyright protection since selling the catalog to Stingray Digital in Canada. He has stated that he "could add copyright" to a lawsuit which makes me wonder exactly what he did sell... His mention of "over the last 3 years" just happens to coincide with the statute of limitations for copyright.

They don't have to spell it out in so many words. All Rights Reserved means just that. Any right not specifically stated means they haven't given that right out.

 

[c. staley]

They don't have to spell it out in so many words. All Rights Reserved means just that. Any right not specifically stated means they haven't given that right out.

That includes those rights which they have specifically denied.

Right?

 

[Guest]

Do you guys need some water for that paper bag? It might be easier to beat your way out of it!:biggrinpill:

 

[c. staley]

Do you guys need some water for that paper bag? It might be easier to beat your way out of it!:biggrinpill:

Sometimes I think you type just to see your vacuous words... anything contributory is apparently optional with you.

 

[Guest]

Actually I have a preference for the word inane as it (and vacuous) perfectly describe 10 of the 11 post above #113 not a single one of those 10 post had a sentient thought but all 10 had a single salient point to them.

 

[Guest]

IP laws state that all rights are reserved to the rights holder unless expressly permitted otherwise.

As in...expressly or judiciously permitted by law.

It is your (often) dubious misrepresentations of copyright law and the boundary of your enforceable rights that is the biggest problem here. It is of course, your "opinion" of how the law has, is or should be enforced and we do not all concur with your conclusions.

 

[Guest]

Do you not know what a "shrinkwrap license" is?

I know exactly what that is, and what the requirments are in order for it to be valid.

I also know the SC products in question have no such license agreement.

 

[Guest]

I know exactly what that is, and what the requirments are in order for it to be valid.

I also know the SC products in question have no such license agreement.

Boy, you sure know a lot, have you ever thought about using your abilities to solve crimes, locate missing persons or maybe even save lives by telling people when and where a natural disaster was going to occur? Just think what you could do for humanity with the powers you have!

 

[Diafel]

Boy, you sure know a lot, have you ever thought about using your abilities to solve crimes, locate missing persons or maybe even save lives by telling people when and where a natural disaster was going to occur? Just think what you could do for humanity with the powers you have!

When all else fails and you have no valid argument left, make fun of and ridicule the opposing side's posts.....

 

[Paradigm Karaoke]

I know exactly what that is, and what the requirments are in order for it to be valid.

I also know the SC products in question have no such license agreement.

alright, no snyde comments from me, but how do you know that they have no such license? and what ARE the requirements?