Karaoke Forums

While I personally am entertained by the back and forth banter, I am also interested in a direct answer to the original question which is the main reason I have been following this thread. I also noticed there are eighteen other individuals that have posted to this thread and over 500 views. I suspect some of those viewers may also be interested in a direct response but have been hesitant to interupt the banter.

I'll repost the question here as a reminder of where we started, and follow with what I believe to be the realistic approach to the problem.
Please comment with your thoughts Mr Harrington.



Chris,
Without special permission from the manufacturers of your discs, you are allowed only one backup per original. However, as long as you limit your usage in simultaneous shows to one copy per each purchased song, the number of unused backups you keep in storage will be irrelevant as long as they remain unused. It is your intentional use of your backup that can ignite legal issues.

Consider this; Since you are planning multiple legal systems, each of those systems can backup the others and have separate backups of their own.

I suspect that any resonable person who has gone through the time and effort of ripping their discs to a hard drive has kept a backup of that drive to avoid the need to ever go through that process again.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

That may be true however the fact that there are others here that do want to know and still use SC tracks, your constant evasion is highly suspect. And that while you are filing lawsuits in federal court over this subject, for some unknown reason, it's simply some kind of fun little game to you?

Seems pretty childish to me when there are those that could benefit from a straight answer.



You can "secretly delight" in whatever fantasies you care to dream up, because I personally don't care what you told Chrisavis, but I do care about others here that have chosen to continue using SC tracks that potentially could lead to legal problems with them and their clients. Especially since the "lead attorney" for SC has opted to turn this subject into his own private game.

Why exactly are you here again?

To clear up misconceptions or create more?

The way I read the response is he has taken care of the OP's situation and he will gladly talk to anyone else personally who has a serious inquirey. I just don't see the use of it going further because too many on here just want to twist it or look for loopholes or signs of evil intentions, no matter what is written. In other words it really doesn't appear that some want an answer so much as just more to criticize.

After reading this, I guess you are right....
I no longer care.
Nobody else should either.
This whole thread was pointless from the onset.
Nevermind.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I understand what you're saying but... I'm wondering why he doesn't just post an answer for ALL the members here to read at one time rather than answer the same question 200 times........ (unless the answer changes 200 times as well) Whether or not he believes that I need or even care about his answer - I'm not the only one here.

His evasive nature regarding this important subject is a bit suspect.

Suspect of what, pray tell? He stated he wanted to discuss the system being used personally and anyone else who wishes to talk about the same question should contact him. Either one cares enough about the situation to do that or else one just wants something more to talk about.

And perhaps there ARE 200 different answers but is that necessarily a sign of evil intent? He did state on another thread that they tend to deal differently with people who present themselves as honest and running a business as a business.

My point exactly. There doesn't seem to be any single "policy" in place. Unless the answers depend either on who you are or how much money they believe you have. This is the problem with using the legal system as a business tool.

How in the world is the average KJ supposed to know what the policy is, or what they deem as legal? How can one possibly be sure that they're as honest as they can be if they can't get a straight answer from the "lead attorney" that is directing all of these lawsuits?

C'mon leopard lizard, you know that they just sued a disc-based KJ (again) and will claim "confusion" or "simple error" or whatever they can dream up. Refusing to set this policy AND make it public is definetly suspect.

Obviously, I'm not asking for my benefit - I don't use the brand so that's a moot point - but it's all the other KJ's that need to have a point of reference which HarringtonLaw is being evasive.

And should there be a different policy for YOU and then a different policy for Rodney and then a different policy for Bazza and then a different policy for Joe C?

If you think there should be, then that's definitely suspect.

This whole thread is just a waste! Backups are private use with non-executable files that should be kept off site. There is no way for SC to enforce restrictions on them if they could even find them so don't worry about it!

[quote="c. staleyHow in the world is the average KJ supposed to know what the policy is, or what they deem as legal? How can one possibly be sure that they're as honest as they can be if they can't get a straight answer from the "lead attorney" that is directing all of these lawsuits?
.[/quote]

I would start with the FAQ as far as the terms of use on their website and then if I had further questions, contact them. It says in one paragraph that anything outside what is spelled out needs written permission. Maybe there are things that can be negotiated? I don't know.

The thing is, even if they spell it out, history on the forums has shown that they will be questioned on their right to spell it out or their right to enforce it etc. I think people who really want an answer to their situation will do the businesslike thing and find it while others will just spend time talking about how unfair things are.

As a businessman, you should understand this. You have asserted your right to privacy in not even wanting to give the locations of your shows or wanting to discuss your disc collection. Yet you are prying for the details of another host's private business transactions and saying that the failure to disclose them is suspect.

We're not talking about another host's private business transactions. We're talking about a public manufacturer's iron clad legal policies, which happen to be relevant since they're suing people for not following them.

_________________
Birdofsong

Yes, some were wanting to know the details of what transpired between the OP and SC. And again--try the FAQ.

So Bird, what exactly are these ironclad LEGAL policies?

You understand the owner of a TM can lease their TM out to anybody at any price they wish. They may lease to me for $1,000,000 and to you they may give it. It is their right as the TM owner. Unless there is a law stating that they have to lease to everybody at a set price, then they (whether SC, Coke, NASCAR, or whoever) the owners are free to make any contract they choose with their customers. At the end of the lease they have the right to change the terms, as long as the law allows it.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Joe, if you want to back up your discs to CDs, DVDs, or some other medium, just follow the media-shifting policy and you're golden.

Otherwise, the official answer is, no backups of media-shifted tracks. Anything beyond the policy will need individual permission.

Or what? You'll go to their house, their business or safety deposit box! There is no trademark displayed, there is no music played so there is no trademark or copyright infringement. There is only data taken off of legally purchased CDs which in true backup form is compressed and saved. In this state it cannot even be used. You can ask that it not be backed up but really you have no control over it no matter what you claim.

Then why do you care what my answer is?

Well their "Gem" comes now in 30 track MP3G discs. I've spoke with them at Sound Choice and they're ok with a media shift to "one" show computer (that applies to any original, so I'm told). I can live with that, sure I bought alot of SC cd's in the past from vendors, but I'm also going to get their "Gem 6000". Why, you ask?... 1) I like the idea of being certificated. 2) Theres a (@$%&#!) load of songs I don't have, or of poor quality. 3) To help support Sound Choice as a whole... If you like them or not, they are still the best "quality" in the industry and we need to keep them afloat. Call it a bailout, but I'd like to see SC producing new CD's agian...

I frankly don't! My question was aimed at the rest of the forum. Your statement was quoted so they would know what I was addressing it too.

Strange how your join date and numbering of statements is so close to ChrisAvis. Makes me think you, Chris and HarringtonLaw could trade inter-office memos!

@Workmen - Really? You want to try to make a conspiracy theory out of this?

First - This is me - http://blogs.technet.com/chrisavis

Second - I should point out that I am not particularly interested in picking up the GEM series at all since I have a substantial SC disc collection already. My call to Sound Choice today will help clarify what I plan to do regarding Sound Choice material.

Third - I hold out no hope that Sound Choice will ever come back from the dead. I suppose it is possible, but I think they have a new business model focused on lawsuits.


-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Chris, no need to change your style now! Your style is all over the Dec threads! I posted one to demonstrate.