Karaoke Forums

Why do people confuse personal and commercial use?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Fred:Mp3+G discs are legal because they are still DISCS.

Soundchoice has paid for the right to 'format shift' it's content. So for them it's not illegal. Which is how they managed to get the licensing for mp3+g discs. What they can't do is grant that right to others for the composition.


According to most 'experts' what makes it all illegal is the TRANSFER to hard drive.

Transfering the mp3+g files to a hard drive is still technically format shifting because you have created two copies *the original disc and the file that sits on the hard drive*

So technically their position that it is illegal hasn't changed, they have just decided to take the position that they don't care anymore IF you can prove you have the original disc, whether it is CDG or mp3+G. In other words they chose to stop fighting a losing battle and recover what they can.

-James

Maybe because most people are not commercial users of music. Most people are of the opinion "I paid for it, I should be able to do whatever the heck I want with it"

And to a certain extent, I actually agree with that.

As long as the Artist gets paid, I firmly believe that a person should be able to use the products that they pay for as they see fit.

However, the diffence between what is LEGAL and what is right are often miles apart.

It is not a question of personal or commercial use.

It is a question of sound choice's crediblity to interpret the law.

2 months ago they said format shifting was illegal. Now they provide a product that is for format shifting of their songs onto a computer hard drive, and they state that 1:1 copying to a hard-drive IS legal. Why don't the parrots that believe everything SC tells them get with the new "gospel" (subject to change).

Unlike what sound choice (and some others) wants us to believe there is no simple "Commercial Use" and non commercial use.

Commercial use can include different levels, for example playing music in a commercial establishment is one level of commercial use, while another level would be putting that music in a TV show, movie, commercial etc. DIFFERENT licenses can be involved.

When it comes to Karaoke, the lisences sold by the artists almost certainly did not specify the rules for some copies of the songs that SC was entitled to make but provided different licenses for other copies. Does everyone believe that SC went out and obtained two different sets of licenses from EACH of the songwriters/artists in their catalog. If we are reasonable about the matter then we realize that sound choice probably obtained a single liscence from each artest allowing them to make and sell some set number of copies of their songs. Most likely they wrote those lisences to allow for commercial use (ie in a bar etc.) otherwise all of SC's products would be pretty worthless to us.


As for the contracts that SC wrote they probably also did not specify the format of the songs. For example they have made (over time) cassette tapes, dvds, CDs, and now CD3+mp3s. Downloaded songs (so long as they are legitimately purchased) are just another FORMAT.

So it comes down to SC selling a product where we can assume identical liscenses have been paid for to the artists, but depending on the format they want to restrict it's uses to specific conditions. This is SC's marketing decision, and I am just wondering if such "conditions" on the sale have any real legal standing, and can be enforced.

Actually if you have followed over the years, SC has stated they wouldn't go after a kj that has format shifted their library on a one to one basis provided they can show the original discs - which is happening their current lawsuits & those are being dropped once proven otherwise without going into any other legal issues. Blame the investigators on that one for not actually trying to find out more IMO. Still not legal to do according to law mainly because they never had the rights to authorize digital versions, but since there is no actual theft in the respect that the kj still pays for the discs (per computer) and just plays them on the computer rather than a player (again on a 1:1 ratio) is the actual issue.
Now (only assumption on my part) they have the digital rights to release their library in a digital format. May be why they do not have individual songs but entire sets available only & targeting only kj's. I'm sure they are trying to give the ones that don't actually have discs a chance to 'get legal' before it comes down to actual legal actions against them, but it also gives all other kj's the chance to get a killer library core at a pretty low price comparatively if they had to buy the discs.
SC doesn't have to worry about the licenses after a kj buys a disc (or song), that is now considered a publishing issue in which the club needs to pay for the right to be able to perform/play the song.

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

Only KJ's get to buy? How will that be regulated? How does one prove that they are actually a professional KJ? Will they have to sign up for an audit of their library? Will they have to provide references in the way of venues they play at? If so, that may be T.M.I.

Does this assume that only honest KJ's will buy the series? Unless they have a way of regulating the number of copies that can be made of each MP3 file or there is an embedded code in the software that can track back to the original purchaser of a particular MP3 file, I can see loopholes a mile wide. A dishonest KJ (term used very loosely) can see the return on investment buying a series and reproducing it 100 times.

Don't get me wrong. This would be a great step in the attempt to keep up with technology. Much better than the concept of streaming and Chartbuster franchises (in another post).

The question of the legality of format shifting will not be settled until it actually is contested in a court of law. No one wants to take the chance because they would probably lose the case. That is assuming the orginal format was purchased in a legal format (ie orginal disc, tape, or authorized download). The law has already ruled on format shifting for personal use. While the karaoke show is commercial, the format used could be considered personal use. If they lose that fight in the courts, then we win the technology battle and lose a lot of threads in this forum. As long as the question is not ruled on, then the manufacturers keep us questioning the legality and continue to keep us guessing in hopes that we will do it the way they want. Unfortunately, all the manufacturers are not on the same page. They could certainly sit down with industry professionals (music publishers and composers) and brainstorm solutions that would deal with the issues. Why have they not done that? Is it because karaoke is not a big dollar industry? I don't think so. I think it's the pirating that keeps the two sides from coming to agreement. Until they come to a solution for limiting the number of copies or putting embedded serial numbers on each authorized copy, then karaoke is a sore issue for all involved. The "for personal use" issue is even a sore subject for the standard music industry. But that's a subject for a different forum.

Sorry for the diarrhea of the keyboard. I digress.

I don't think many of you are understanding my point on the matter with regards to commercial use.

We have the case on regular music (not karaoke) where there is only one class of product, and so long as you buy the product from an entity that can sell it to you, you can use the music in public, private or commercial setting. You can not use it for commercial use, Ie you can not re-sell the song or use it in a movie, commercial etc. BUT you can use it in a bar or other commercial setting as music, provided the public use has been paid for by ASCAP/BMI. Many of us who are music DJs know we are allowd to go to any legit store (or download site) obtain a music song and use it in the club, regardless of the format of the music. We do not have the rights to make some forms of "commercial use" but play in a commercial setting "public performance" is allowed if ASCAP/BMI are paid. More appropriately the use in a commercial setting (for pay karaoke in a bar) would more appropriately fall under the catagory of public performance or fair use, as opposed to the broader catagory of commercial use.

An individual artist or publisher does not have the option of writing their own copyright law or rules for their songs, with regards to public performance the artist has to go with the legal framework that exists for ALL songs out there. So for example the artist Kid Rock does not have the ability to ban all public performance of "Picture" and only allow the songs to be played in private. (oh how I wish he did and could) The artist also does not have the option of producing 2 versions of a song, one for play at the home setting, and not allowed to be played by a dj or radio station and another higher priced version for the radio/dj market.

With video the situation is the reverse, there are two versions of video (movies/tv shows etc), one for home use, and the other for public performance. The public performance version usually costs far more due to royalties.

The unsettled question that needs to be determined by a judge is if Karaoke is video or music. If it is music the public performance rules of music apply, if it is video the public performance rules for video apply. One very strong argument in the case of karaoke being music is that ASCAP/BMI already charge their fee for the public performance of karaoke, indicating that they view karaoke as music. With the exception of SC and Karaoke channel, there is no assertation by other companies of two different versions of karoke, one for public performance and the other for private use. I do not know the answer to this question, but I am certian that different judges will have different interpretations of the law. If this is ever going to be settled it will be at a high level of the court, possibly the supreme court. The other option is the laws could be written more clearly by Congress (now they are not).

Copyright law is a set of rules that allow us to buy products of specific classes and use them in similar matters without having to research the rules for use of specific items. The production and use of copyright material would be utter confusion if each writer, artist etc could write their own rules for use. Ie I can not write a song and declare that I have copyright on it for 500 years when the law states I have it for far less. I also do not have the option of writing a song and preventing someone from making a cover version of that song (provided they pay the standard royalties). If this was not the case then some songwriters out of pride or greed would prevent others from making cover versions of "their" songs.

Most laws regarding copyright do not express different conditions depending on the format of the media. THe distinction of legally download vs physical product is generally not applied in most cases.

While SC can make assertations of one view or another they do not write copyright law. Reading of case law and common practice for similar products, it would appear that SC's case is quite weak in this matter. This does not imply that some judge out there might agree with SC's view, but it is more likely that the juge that sees the case would side against SC on this matter.

Again I am not a lawyer, but I know enough about the law that I know I can find lawyers that would argue both sides of the case.

Actually what Kurt from soundchoice has said, is that the format shift for transfering the MUSIC AND TRADEMARK will be legal because this is what they have control over.

Their licensing agreement for the GEM series will state IN WRITING that they cannot grant the right to tranfer the GRAPHICAL portion to a hard drive but in their OPINION the rights holder will not come after you for the "format shift".

Kurt has been very upfront about this to anyone who has bothered to ask him, and if you were to contact him, he'd tell you the exact same thing..

-James

How many private or "home users" do you know that would be willing to shell out $4500 for a set of karaoke discs that a local host might not even be able to play if they are using CDGs?

As for the rest of it, to the best of my knowledge every set of discs will have the serial number embedded into the taglines so it will be possible to trace where the set originated from. Now someone will probably find a way around that but MOST of the people I know aren't smart enough to figure out how to do it!

What I have suggested to soundchoice is on the next set of discs they produce is that they put the actual serial number of the set into the graphic portion of the intro but that might up the expense of each set.

-James

When the bottom of the page in half. A large blue flag tape can be downloaded from home and personal use, not for commercial sites, host karaoke in there places to call SC for legal downloads Commercial sorry..

_________________
r4 revolution

That is actually for the download site, not the mp3g sets SC is offering to kj's.

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