Karaoke Forums

Edit in bold: Sound Choice is the plaintiff. I know the defendant. He WANTS the case to go to court.

An SC audit is not court ordered.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension, dude. Present tense refers to things that are happening now, like the current VA lawsuits. That's why I worded it "IS refusing."

Bless yo' l'il heart.

_________________
Dave's not here.

Moon Rider,

Which one want's it to go to court?

Is he in Richmond VB or NV?

Old article . . .

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/business/ ... -ar-21042/

_________________
Dave's not here.

If you have been following the disucssion, I am claiming that this is similar to a case where format shifting has been found LEGAL for purposes of ease of use. Yes it excpets "commercial use" but commercial use of karaoke is licensed by ASCAP/BMI not by the MANUS. As for a case of commercial use involving only format shifting it is not decided yet. Arguably the commercial use of karaoke is only of interest to the copyright holders (original artists, NOT the karaoke publishers). The public performance license is provided by ASCAP/BMI.

The question is, is format shifting by a KJ more similar to a case involving NON-commercial use calling it legal, or is it more similar to a non-existant case calling it illegal? The only thing we can use in our arguement is the cases that have been decided.

Comprehension is fine, it's the bs I'm reading that is the problem! Defendant has no choice. If SC files a motion for discovery with the court and the judge agrees there is reason, the judge will order the equipment seized and the audit done.

I suspect SC would be hard pressed to convince a judge that there's reason just on the basis of seeing a song played on a screen, particularly when the defendant claims they can produce the song on disc.
SC will have to submit a list of songs played to the court and when they KJ produces said discs, it will be game over. No judge is going to allow such a fishing expedition.

Well I don't have the legal knowledge that you guys do but from what I have been reading on the subject the principals in the case, that would be the defendant and the plaintiff, ask each other for things like discovery, and interaggatories, it has nothing to do with the judge unless one or the other fails to produce. Then which ever asked for the discovery that was denied then makes a motion to compel, once the motion is heard that is when the one who failed to comply can defend his actions of not submitting to the rules of the court. If he can show that what the opposing party asked for in discovery has no bearing on the outcome of the case and the judge agrees then that portion of the discovery is blocked.

But from the little reading I have done it would appear that anything pertaining to the business, income, places where business was conducted, any items, articles, machines, software, tools, and records, would all be discoverable items. But again that is just looking at the rules of the court, you guys with the legal expertise probably know a lot more than I do on the subject.

What fishing expedition. The Plainiff will state either the trademark or the music itself was played from a computer or laptop or whatever and that there were no dics and said music was not a legal digital download. The Defendant will say they have the disc. A judge would not base the decision on the Defendant's word but would have the Defendant prove it by producing the discs. If the Defendant can prove it, then case closed (provided a judge accepts 1:1).

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

This is where the question of whether SC allowed the format shift or not. I highly doubt that if the defendant allows it to go all the way to court that SC is going to say "yes we allowed it". Instead they are going to say to the judge to have the defendant produce in writing the permissions given to format shift, knowing they can't produce such a paper. Case closed. Win for SC.

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

Sound Choice has conducted many audits already and thay have "allowed" these conversions of format to be used by people that have proved to be running a 1:1 ratio. If defendant proves to be 1:1, why would a judge not allow that person the same privilege as the other KJ's were given??? I don't think Sound Choice has the right to allow KJ Joe to format shift and deny that same right to KJ Mary.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SC has the right to allow anyone they decide to and they also have the right to deny those same rights. I would deny the right to format shift to anyone who was stubborn enough to take it to court when all they had to do is ask for an audit to begin with.

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

Sound Choice gives fair use rights to the purchaser when they sell the product. Whether or not format shifting is fair use is the question. I'm guessing that it is but the judges opinion is the only one that counts.

This website has a pretty good summary of the arguments:

http://ipjustice.org/karaokefairuse.shtml

The audio visual work argument is interesting and I wonder if that could tip the balance against the format shifter.

You are correct

You are correct if KJ Mary had gone through an audit and had the permission in writting the Judge wouyld throw the case out, of course if she had permission then she wouldn't be in court to begin with!

You are also correct if someone is using format shifted karaoke inside the parameters of fair use then it wouldn't be a problem. The really sticky part the way I see it is what do you call fair use.

IPjusustice is not the courts. They do not have anything but opinion to back them up in a commercial environment. The Commercial aspect is where SC will win their case.
YOU NEED WRITTEN PERMISSION TO PLAY A FORMAT SHIFTED HARD DRIVE IN A COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT PERIOD.
The only way to get that permission is to subject yourself to an audit. Once you pass that audit then you will have the paperwork stating you have permission to foramt shift their product.

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

It's your opinion that you need written permission to play a format shifted hard drive in a commercial environment. I don't think that's true if the establishment has paid their commercial use fee for music. I believe that format shifting will be deemed as fair use but you believe differently. Our opinions don't really count. It will be the judge who ultimately decides if it ever goes to trial.

And that is why Sound Choice doesn't want to have this "issue" to wind up in a court room. It will look like David and Goliath all over again. Big MILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION picking on some guy trying to make a little extra money on the side to feed his kids.

Yes that is the way they look at it with shop lifters too!

That "some guy" is like the rest of the "some guys" who worked hard to become Big corporations. Do you think Coke or McD started with thousands of employees and millions in assests? No they generally start with one or two people who work their derriaires off and took the risks. Now whether one chooses to do that or not is up to them. But it doesn't give others the right to rip them off no matter how big or small one is. Nothing wrong with making extra money as long as it is legal.

As for not wanting it to go to court? Any of the Defendants could have taken it to court but so far none has. As for cost? This being a test case I'm surprised those who advocate don't get together and raise a legal fund and get one of those hotshot lawyers from ipjustice to defend the case.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Here's my (stupid) question.... Are we talking about Format Shifting the SC Logo or the entire CDG?

Didn't SC say (manny times over, and several years ago), that they paid for the permission to reproduce the music into a CDG Format, and that they DID NOT own the music, therefore they could NOT grant permission for someone else to Format Shift from CDGs to MP3Gs (or whatever other computer format there is), because it is NOT theirs to begin with?


*** EDIT/FOOTNOTE: Also, keep in mind that even if you go through the Audit process with SC and pass, SC has stated that they will not seek to go after you for Format Shifting, BUT they also said that they CAN NOT guarantee that the people who own the copyright to that music won't go after you.

Remember.... SC does not own the music, therefore, they can not give you permission to Format Shift (regardless of whether you pass or fail their Audit).