Karaoke Forums

If number one were true, than number two could not be. You can do something that is illegal if someone outside of the judiciary says it's ok? C'mon......

If shifting for commercial use has been determined illegal, then criminal charges would have been brought against that specific action, and the police would leave no PC based KJ unturned.


Also, I never used the phrase "non-legal" . I said that the words "legal" and "compliant" ( as in to comply to SC's wishes) were consistantly being interchanged incorrectly.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

While this was the right thing to do, and you may have limited your liability with a paper trail- or not- one fact remains:

Per YOUR definition ( definitely not mine):
----------------------------------------------------------------
kjathena wrote:

1) it is not legal(illegal, non-legal) to media shift for commercial purposes.

2) If you wish to convert your files and play from a computerized system you must get permission from the trademark owners..
.
------------------------------------------------
You have not secured said permissions ( even if they COULD allow you to do something that you consider against the law), and under YOUR definition you are operating illegally.

Keep in mind that I do NOT believe that you are, but YOU do.....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

vocabulary.com definition of the word

illegal

Something illegal is against the law or breaks the rules. If you're reading this in jail, you've probably done something illegal, and if you're not in jail, there's plenty of time to obey the law.

I have weighed the risks and followed the rules as outlined by my IP attorney. If I ever have a problem then I guess I will "have to pay the piper" and not ***** about it. I have accepted the level of risk I am willing to take and accept responsibility for my decisions

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

Oh..........um,........thanks for clearing that up?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Actually, I can say the same, and have provided the e-mails to prove it.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

so you have no permission.......thank you for being so upstanding about that.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Athena,

It seems to me that with regard to the 3 manufacturers you've received permission from -- you are making a statement of righteousness to the rest of us -- saying it is ILLEGAL (and making a judgment for all those who do not get permission from them), and holding yourself up to your high standards. You are quick to be the authority to all with regard to what you believe everyone is doing wrong (that you are not).

Then....on the other hand (talking out of the other side of your mouth)...you are shifting multiple manufacturers' products without permission and just calling it risk. Illegal is illegal. If you are going to hold yourself up as the pinacle of righteousness, you should hold yourself up to the same standard for all products -- not just the ones that have shown that they may sue you. Either you're following a moral standard or you're not. And you're not. Please stop preaching.

Remember - these are your definitions and your standards. Not mine. I don't think there's a damn thing wrong with shifting without permissionwhen you own the product. But you do, and you have been judgmentally preaching around here.

If you're going to take a position -- then follow it. Not just when it's convenient. And if you choose to do that -- stop preaching to the rest of us.

Thanks.

_________________
Birdofsong

Birdofsong,

You are entitled to your opinion. I have held to the same" line " continuously....If you dont like what I say just ignore it. I will not feel manipulated or put down by anyone here. I am quite comfortable in my sense of integrity and my own skin.

The definitions of legal and illegal were posted directly form vocabulary.com to counter a post suggesting that non-legal was different than illegal. Again my strongest advise to EVERYONE....Educate yourself...decide what level of liability you are willing to take and don't *****when you have to pay for your decisions.

Oh and it's a total of 6 manufactures (3 by audit and 3 by letter), I send emails every week attempting to reach those that have not responded and following ownership trails. Given more time I am sure I will receive more letters of permission as well.

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

As I understand it, the trademark/copyright owners have certain rights that go along with ownership including the right to authorize or not authorize copies. Recent court cases have backed SC on this. If a company has not chosen to exercise those rights then how does one comply and where is the violation? Athena has been up front as to where she stands and how she handles things. Where is the judgmental attitude in that?

This isn't the OJ trial on here. People seem to think they can interpret law or find loopholes to obeying regulations/rights/laws whatever based on the slip of a tongue or dissecting a word to death or just on a poorly constructed post. How clever or nit pickiy you can be does not change the laws governing intellectual property.

People may hate the message or they may just hate the messenger for whatever reason but trying to nitpick words or posts doesn't change the fact that we have alot coming down on us that will require our attention and possible compliance. It isn't just SC--hosts are being sued, venues are being sued, distributors are being sued, manufacturers are being sued. BMI is going to town all over. It is all up and down the line. Anyone tried to log onto Express Karaoke lately? Or Prosing? Or Loud Karaoke? What if the rumors are true and the border loopholes are closed? Our base for buying new music is shrinking. Everone is getting into the act but no one seems to notice as we are too caught up with just blaming SC or trying to write our own laws or interpretations via popular concensus.

Perspective...definitely a good thing to find. The non-permission position some are taking is actually personified by my attempt to emphasize that there is a third position other than LEGAL and ILLEGAL. Embrasing this fact should not encourage one to try to disprove by mincing words...

With all due respect, it's not a question of message or messenger. The negative reaction to SC's lawsuits isn't based on "ethics" or "principles." It's based on two things: resentment that the free ride is over, and sympathy for the perceived "little guy."

You can add a third thing to that, concern for the future of karaoke.

My concern has been the extortion of settlements from venues with threats of "vicarious infringement". Many venues have a tendency to determine what level of hassle they are willing to take for the entertainment they are willing to provide. I believe the evolution of this lawsuit experiment must lead to focusing the suits where the likelyhood of getting paid is highest. That means suing those with the deepest pockets -- the venues. When word gets around that karaoke can lead to the venue being sued, that's when venues will start dropping karaoke because it won't be worth the hassle.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

The venues can already be sued for not complying with BMI. Plenty either drop their music or try to go underground from that alone. A venue must comply with many things when it offers music--some communities even require a noise permit. A legal library host is just a part of that puzzle and shouldn't be an exemption or deal breaker.

If the venues hadn't wanted to save a buck by hiring a pirate, how many pirates would we have today? They don't get away with serving counterfeit beverages--not for long, anyway, they even have stings for that. They don't say that because we might get in trouble for letting in underage people we had better not let in anyone at all--they check id. Hiring a legal host isn't much different.

The negative reaction to the SC lawsuits is NOT resentment over a free ride. That may be coming from the pirates, the REAL resentment is coming from those hosts that are NOT pirates that just want to shift their CDs over, that they BOUGHT from SC. They resent being named in lawsuits, frivolously, just because they shifted, then they resent being CHARGED to prove their innocence, be it before being named or after. People don't have money to waste like that. Personally, I don't have an issue with you suing the crap out of pirates. But stop going after EVERYONE. If a guy has a library of a few thousand songs, most likely he's not a pirate. That is where the resentment is coming from. If a person wants to pay $150 to have a 300 discs collection audited that is reasonable. I do not feel it is reasonable to pay $150 to have a 38 disc collection audited. It's just a waste of money. IMHO. I am sure others have their own feelings about it.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

You made my point right there.


Robert L. Paynter, admitted pirate from the Florida lawsuit who got off completely, was getting $200 per show.


These are silly arguments because the law already clearly addresses these things and they are things any bar owner can easily control. However, a bar owner has no control over the KJ who flashes a certificate, yet uses pirated material anyway. A bar owner has no control over third party companies that decide to get into the lawsuit business because it has paid off so well for others without any downside to suing just to see if they can squeeze out a settlement.


Don't you mean compliant host?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I'm an ODB KJ (part time/hobbyist). There is nothing for me to be compliant with, since I have not converted anything. Therefore, I am referred to as being Legal. Now if you want to make a reference to a computer-based KJ, then your question is more accurate.

No venue has been "extorted," and you should be very careful using that term.



That will actually be a good thing for the industry. There are far too many karaoke shows based upon the size of the market for that form of entertainment. Oversaturation is enabled by piracy and by venues who look the other way when hiring pirates. When pirates don't have much of an investment in their music, they can afford to work for less, which means that more venues can economically justify having shows, and quality suffers.

I hate it when the quoting process gets too long so I will just reply as: All of the suing going on is a result of problems and not the causes of them. If a bar wants to have live music then it is not out of line to expect them to follow the regulations. If they are afraid to know what those regulations are then it is not SCs fault. Why keep creating this climate that excuses irresponsibility?

For every Paynter I could probably give you 3 pirates that do shows for $30/beer. There are exceptions to everything but most pirates are known for charging less because they have less expenses.

Again, I think you are just making excuses for people not wanting to know their own business or follow through on the requirements for running one. An owner can get a good idea if they are dealing with a pirate. An owner can ask to see discs. An owner can ask for a business license if one is required in their town. An owner can ask for certification. Somewhere I think it is even written that if a venue hires a certified host then they are exempt from being sued so I think that covers their responsibility pretty simply. This is just one of those cases where just doing what needs to be done takes alot less time and stress than kicking and screaming about having to do it.

Since the use of the dictionary is becoming commonplace in this forum;
Many people find getting sued to be intimidating, I suspect many venue owners feel the same.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

There is no requirement to be certified. And right now you can only be certified by SC, so that would give THEM an unfair advantage in the marketplace. That would mean that to run a Karaoke show you would HAVE to have Sound Choice in your inventory,regardless of if you wanted to or not. Is that what YOU are advocating, LL?? That isn't even American.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE