Karaoke Forums

Anybody know if removing the logo from or the water mark from the screen would be an option in keeping soundchoice at bay after all it seems there suit is bases on showing ther logo of course this may open a whole new can of worms

If they can prove it was originally their track they can sue you for damaging their tracks.

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

I am sure Mr. Harrington will be along shortly to explain it to you.

According to SC, any Media-Shifted SC track used in a "for Profit Commercial Venture" that has NOT been authorized for use by SC is deemed to be "Counterfeit."

Although SC can and is suing for TM Counterfeiting, a "counterfeit" is NOT their track...so, it follows that they shouldn't win a suit for "Damaging" it.

Honestly, when you (and others) make posts like this, in which you are essentially trying to justify behavior that amounts to piracy, it makes it very difficult for you to claim that you aren't "pro-pirate."

Why is it so hard for people to admit that the right thing to do is to pay for the music, use it as it is intended, and if you want it in a different format, pay a very small amount for the privilege? Why are you trying so hard to find a way around paying for the music?

Now, all of that aside...just because we sue for trademark infringement involving counterfeiting does not mean that there aren't other things we could sue for, some of which cover that kind of behavior.

Most everyone would be willing to do that. However, it is not possible to do with consistency from manufacturer to manufacturer, and from song to song. If there were blanket licensing? Sure, no problem. But selling individual tracks on custom terms from many manufacturers? It is not surprising people commit piracy just to avoid having to wend their way through that endless and senseless forest of rights.

If someone could audit and make someone legal without fear from all manufacturers? Lots of people would do it. But with no indemnification, someone is going to submit to the whims of a manufacturer audit, one that we have seen is far from consistent in nature? It is not surprising that people balk.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Why is so hard for manus to realize that there are KJ's (customers) who have legally purchased their discs and feel they shouldn't have to pay an annual don't sue me fee.

Why is there not more information on SC's website about the audit process and terms for use of logo/tracks by a certified KJ?

Why is the the cost of the audit and renewal fee/process not posted on the site?

Why is it that SC wants compliance for something they aren't willing to publish the terms of?

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

Who exactly is paying an annual "Don't sue me fee"?

I certainly am not.

Any KJ that has gone through an audit for permission to use media-shifted manu tracks and wishes to remain in good standing with the manus requiring the audit.

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

Discs were purchased and SC stated, in writing, that KJs, not Home users, maximize their profits. For ten years no one stated that the KJs could not use the disc in any manner other than what is contained in the Warning Label on each disc.

Let's brake that down:
Use of this pre-recorded material contained herein in any manner for the:
Reproductions of the recording for sale? Nope not selling anything.
Rental or distribution? Nope not Renting or Distributing anything...therefore, don't need consent.
Public Performance: Nope...not paying anyone to perform.
Rental: Nope...not renting.
Broadcast Transmission in part or in whole: Nope...track not encoded on a Carrier Wave.

Seems I have complied with everything on the disc, in good faith, as a, pre-established, normal course of business. Nowhere does a purchased disc or its literature is there any information directing a KJ to view additional information of RIGHTS.

Now, ten years later someone wants to cry foul because that same someone cries about the fact that they can't tell if a KJ has a set of corresponding discs. Now, you want KJs to pay more to you because you can't prove a KJ is 1:1 on sight? Fat chance.

You are in the catch 22...Not the KJ...and as such, and, at the very least, a KJ should never have to PAY for an Audit or to agree to any terms set forth in any audit that ties a KJ to UNJUST servitude simply because you Offered FOR SALE, across state lines...COMMERCE...a simple $35.00 product.

We already know what your argument is. My argument is that I have a right to make a Backup and use it in any manner. Let's see if the court agrees.

That is not what "Public Performance" means.

This is where you erred. When you play the track in a public location like a bar or restaurant, that is a public performance.



You do not have the right to "make a backup and use it in any manner." You have the right to make a backup and use it as a backup. You do not have the right to change the contents, to make duplicates for non-backup purposes, or to use your "backups" as a production set.

As for "unjust servitude," what exactly do you think a certified KJ has to do?

Bravo GD Well said . I think that would be a good argument in court regardless what Harrington has to say. Oh James You never spoke on my invite.

The rights that SC has are spelled out in the license agreements with the music publishers and they have very little to do with whether you have particular rights to do one thing or another.

Also, you do not have to be re-audited every time you add a disc. If you had made an actual inquiry about the audit system instead of making up reasons not to get audited or listening to people who don't know what they're talking about, you would know that.

If you think that will make a good argument in court, then if you find yourself having to make it you will not like the result.

What "invite" are you referring to?

Bravo HarringtonLaw. Well said!

Hey Harrington as someone that Supported YOUR company in which you represent I have done nothing wrong( Supported as in Bought the disks and songs which were on other disk sets repeatedly). I also don't agree with The Audit from them. If it were paid for by monies I sent to them for all the disks I bought that would be one thing. I noticed awhile back in Disk I got that SC promotes the gem series which is already MP3+g and when moving to a HD. Yeah Just send the set or disk back and BUY again the entire set which I own. No thanks. Sounds to me like they are trying real hard to make money with Audits, Disk packs or anyway else ( Lawsuits for the guilty or not guilty) or the buy back program.

Question James, Miss Chip yet? I rather enjoyed the arguments between you two he he....

I have read this three times and can't figure out your point, nor do I see any "invite."

If you play from original discs, you do not need to do an audit. If you are not playing from original discs, and you have not obtained an audit to verify your compliance with the media-shifting policy, then you have made an unauthorized duplicate of the tracks. The thing that is causing you to need an audit is not your use of the material. It is that you duplicated the material without authorization. If you don't want to get audited, don't media-shift the content of SC discs. It really is that simple.



Chip and I disagree on a lot of things, but at a minimum he seems to be able to get his point across clearly.

sorry I am not as clear spoken as yourself and chip in posting thoughts, My Invite may be on one of the 10 threads or so about SC . Oh I am just breaking stones James for the most part. Civil or criminal I think it is wrong. But Hey I just want to help Piracy end , Not to make a profit off audits.