Karaoke Forums

Well so do cars, machinery, even your hard drive. What's your point? You certainly can't replace cars, machinery, hard drives, etc for free or reproduce them for next to nothing. Further, 1:1 is for private use only and is clearly stated in the Copyright Act. If it were allowed for commercial use, it would say so, just as it states for educational use, etc. Nice try but no cigar.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Dr. Fred,

What a wonderful thought, I like it! The problem with what you have put forward is that the lawsuits are not about format shifting, they are about trademark violations, displaying an unauthorized "copy" of said trademark. Format shifting is the cause of the copy not the reason for the lawsuit, it has nothing to do with copyright violations at this time. Sound Choice has authorized the display of their trademark from origional SC disc when anyone makes a copy of it and displays it they have commited a violation as in format shifting/copying it for computer use. It is Sound Choice's right to decide how and by what means their trademark will be displayed and it is their right to give or not give their permission to anyone to make a 1:1 copy of that trademark. By doing the audit with them they will grant that permission, seems like an easy solution to me.

Actually the fair use act specifically states that commercial use is not included! And the courts did not decide that personal use was fair use, making copies of musical works audiovisual works for personal use must be done on media designed for that purpose this started back in the day of cassette tape a fee is applied to the media cassette tape and "music" CDs that is used to compensate the copyright holders of that music.



But again this is not what the lawsuits are about.

The trademark issue was settled long ago when time shifting was found legal for transfer from TV to tape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp. ... udios,_Inc.

Since most TV shows have trademarks (often several) this duplication of trademarks has been found to be legal by the supreme court.


As for commercial use, that is only one of several factors to consider with regards to format shifting. For karaoke the rights of the copyright holders (original artists) with regards to public performance are managed by ASCAP/BMI not the maker of the karaoke version. Of course ASCAP/BMI do not manage other aspects of commercial use (such as recording someone singing karaoke) only public performance.

There are legal opinions that support this view, (http://www.imaginelaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1196173.html), that the commercial nature of public performance does not prohibit format shifting with regards to karaoke.

Format shifting is becoming increasingly common in the commercial world as a response to improved tech for many things besides karaoke. Many (in some areas most) DJs now commonly use format shifted music for their public performance, and that has not been challenged to my knowledge. The courts are unlikely to side against technological progress that makes a commercial activity easier or more efficient (such as computer run karaoke vs disks). This is especially the case if the product is legally purchased 1:1. Section 112 of copyright law specificaly allows some format shifting to facilitate broadcasting (commercial use). While the specifics are different from the format shifting of a radio broadcaster and a KJ, a reasonable judge might see substantial similarity. While the broadcaster is specifically allowed to make temporary format shifts for 6 months, they are allowed to keep the format shifts for archival purposes. With the changes in technology that have occured in the more than 10 years since the section was revised, it is reasonable to expect current interpretatons would be even more tech friendly. None of the laws that explicitly permit format shifting for non-commercial use forbid it for commercial use. They just leave the question of commercial use open because there are so many different types of commercial use.

Again both sides can be argued, just the legality of format shifting for commercial KJs seems to be permitted by law and case history, and most likely outcome of a court case dirrectly addressing the issue. Until it is settled format shifting 1:1 of karaoke tracks is at worst potentially illegal but most likely legal. It is definitely not illegal in the case history.

! Ok!

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

RIAA vs Diamond established that a private user could shift a song to an MP3 device to give it "portability" but specifies that this is a decision for personal use and not commericial use. The suit vs. Sony over Betamax established that a private user could "time shift" a show by recording it to view back later but again, this was personal use. Nowhere does it allow copying the show and taking the copy to a business and charging money for people to come in and see it.

While many have argued the above precedents would probably be applied to karaoke if challenged, no one has volunteered to be the test case yet, as far as I know. It is all just opinion and nothing proven yet.

I don't suppose that by any chance you bothered to read what you posted!

Yes I did read it and a lot of other material on the matter, and If you had read the other material you would realize that "time shifting", "space shifting" and "format shifting" are used in many discussions and laws, and court cases with regards to copyright law.

This court case, which went to the supreme court is an important factor with regards to Format shifting. Yes the case involves recording of tv on tape. But that is copying using technology to make copyright material more easy to use, while at the same time respecting the origional copyright to some extent. Yes this does not fit exactly with the question of transfer of cds to a computer for karaoke, but the Supreme court is very unlikely to EVER address that issue. Face it karaoke is not big enough to make it onto their docket.

Now do your own research and find a court case where any form of format shifting (not including distribution of material) was found illegal. Don't just point out that this decision on a similar case does not PROVE that it is legal.

True but as a KJ we do not have the opportunity to volunteer to be the test case, becase KJs who format shift for commercial use can only volunteer if an accuser decides to sue them first. That accuser would have to be either a publisher or copyright holder of music. The accuser is the one that has to volunteer first and then find an sutiable defendant to test the case. So far as I know they have never prosecuted anyone of this alleged violation of format shifting karaoke for public performance, and this is most likely because the legal advisors have told the publishers of karaoke to not waste their time and money on a very bad bet. Yes the format shifting issue has been thrown into cases where it is clearly a case of copyright piracy, and the defendents have usually either settled or been convicted of copyright piracy. With both SC and CB saying that they will not even try to sue for 1:1 compliant KJs don't expect the situation to change anytime soon.

The announcements of SC and CB on the matter means that they have realized that technology has won the fight, and 1:1 format shifting is de-facto legal, even for KJs doing public performance. Now it is time for the footsoldiers to come out of the jungle and stop fighting a war that the leaders already declared lost. It took decades of denial for some Japanese soldiers in WWII to give up the fight, and I suspect some of you KJs will be still running disk based shows "because it is the only legal way to do it" 30 years from now. At some point continuing the fight in a lost war moves from the classification of stubborn into surreal.

Well it appears to me that at least here in Virginia there are a couple of KJs who indeed do have the chance to become the test cases for the courts since there doesn't appear to have been a settlement between them and Sound Choice and the cases are still on the dockets.

Also I don't think you may have noticed but Sound Choice isn't suing for 1:1 complient KJs, those who are in complience go through the audit and that is the end of it, those who aren't 1:1 either settle or go on to court.

I have read your posts in this thread and agree! Although most are not taking exception to what Sound Choice and Chartbuster is requiring as to the 1:1 copy. It along with media and format shifts are being assumed as Sound Choice and Chartbuster's legal rights!

Assuming if they have an audit and pass they are safe. Really all they have done is limit their, the KJs rights. They had full legal rights until they agreed to comply with Sound Choice and Chartbuster's requirements. Now if they have a backup drive or backup pc both with all songs plus the pc they use for shows they are not in compliance with the Sound Choice and Chartbuster agreement.

If I have 10 PCs full of songs and have 1 cd for each I am legal in court as long as I use only 1 at a time. True I could use 2 PCs and be in violation but then both uses would have to be proved in court and I would only be illegal on one PC. Now if I comply wth Sound Choice or Chartbuster requirements and had 10 PCs full of songs having 1 cd for each song then I would be illegal on all 10 PCs even if I used only 1 because I was not 1:1 compliant. If I used 2 then I would be illegal on both not just one.

Also if I media shifted songs to not only hard drive but to a thumb drive I would be in violation of Sound Choice or Chartbuster requirements regardless if I use both at the same time or not. I would still be legal if I had no agreement with Sound Choice or Chartbuster.

Y'all lost your last battle of wits with a box of rocks didn't you?

Bless yo' l'il heart.

_________________
Dave's not here.

It is highly likely that the DJs that still have a court case are probably fighting on other grounds than the format shifting, but they might just be fighting because SC's threats are just too crazy.

The problem is that SC is using the format shifting to argue that they are allowed to conduct an audit of KJs. They throw out threats to force the audit (like the $750 fine per song transfered to hard drive that is mentioned in many of their recent CDs).

Now I bet if SC could really get NOT LESS THAN $750 per song transfered to hard drive they should be a quite rich company because many KJs do have 5000-10000+ karaoke songs ripped from SC. The fine for ripping the foundations alone would be $67.5k. How can anyone believe SC for legal matters when they put out such a threat to everyone that buys their product and uses it in a way that is practiced by a very large portion of the KJs in the industry, and according to many legal experts FULLY legal???

Finally here is another question for those that willingly undergo an audit. What if SC really does cary out that THREAT of $750 per song transferred to hard drive. Do I really want SC to have a documented record of the >13,000 SC songs I have bought on CD and transferred to my drive??? That would be not less than $1,000,000 according to the penalty claimed in their cd inserts. That threat should be enough to never want to undergo an audit for any KJ that owns a lot of SC disks and runs a HD.

Now I am not the kind of person to say "Thank you for not taking $1,000,000 from me, i will do anything you ask just don't take everything I own" to SC, but I am the kind of person that says "You do not have the right to take $1,000,000 from me, I run a legal show, your threats offend me".

One of those left on the docket in Virginia is refusing to settle and refusing an audit for that very reason.

_________________
Dave's not here.

BUT the fact of the matter is they are not doing that. I went through their audit and not once did they say "You format shifted our product, I want $x for compensation." They just aren't interested in getting extortion money out of their legal customers that are 1:1 compliant.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Also remember that monies awarded in court can also include punitive damages over the actual loss. The courts award punitive damages as a measure to ensure others realize what can happen if they break a rule or law.

I would be very interested what Dr fred would do if SC came along. Internet talk is big until it happens to you. I've seen this happen many times. People thinking this or that doesn't apply to them.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

You go to that trial did you? They don't publish results until judgement is made so how would you know? Or are you the plaintiff?

Is no way to refuse a court order during discovery. They just come with fed. marshals, serve a warrant and take your equipment. Depending on what they find they may or may not return it and this may or may not happen during or after the trial.

Simple fact is very few of these cases take place. A KJ knows if he/she is legal unless the game is changed. SC appears to be trying to change the game. Is one thing to sue someone who has little or no CDs and 100,000 songs on HD but quite another to audit complete inventory looking for a cd or 2 missing.

Dallas, Tx has more than their fair share of pirates. SC you want to do some good and take out many pirates come to Dallas. But if you think those that are legal won't go to court on this you are sadly mistaken!

I would do probably what all of us would do in a such a situation. I would look at the cost of actually fighting on principle or just settling.

I probably would seek legal consultation and realize that the cost of the legal fight to prevent an audit would end up costing me thousands of dollars, and would at best have a limited chance of preventing such an audit. Depending on the estimated cost I would make my decision, but I am not giving up my house to pay for legal costs.

I might be willing and able to spend a few thousand, and be able to do so. But realistically we all have our limits.

Dr Fred,

I was refering to the fact that everything revolved around Personal HOME USE and if you read the opinion on the case by the Justices you would have noted the concern about commercial use or public display!

It cost me $300 to get my audit done. THat was for the trip down to Sound Choice only. No discs. IF you count the discs then it cost me $3609 for the GEM series and 3 regular CD+G discs.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.