Karaoke Forums

Can't imagine arguing that a slip of paper was inserted in a jewel case indicating that you do not have permission to media shift would hold up in court. No proof that it was in there. Just because it was supposed to be, doesn't mean it was. No proof that it was even looked at. Plus there are tons of used discs sold everyday...are they going to argue that the slip of paper was included when those discs changed hands? Plus, the fact that both Slep brothers can be shown to have stated more than once that it was OK to shift as long as you were 1:1 throws water on it. Changing stances mid stream is tough to do.

I'm saying I see very little difference, your paying someone to stay in business regardless of whom it might be.
You are paying a license, certification, or for protection any way you look at it. That is why it is so hard to tell the good guys from the bad. I guess the problem is I really don't hate the enemy, and I don't particularly like the manus I'm supposed to be working with.

I don't know about your state but where I am from yes you have to go to the DMV to get a drivers license. Now a standard drivers license will let you drive any car you want. But to shift over to a motorcycle you have to go back to DMV show them that you can operate a motorcycle (to some very small extent) and then pay another fee to have a license to operate that motorcycle. Now if you want to drive a bus you have to go back to DMV and show that you have the ability to operate a bus and pay another fee for that license, same thing for a class A license to operate a truck etc. They all drive on the same highway though.

But the one thing that DMV can't do is allow you to shift over to an aircraft and operate it on your drivers license.

Your analogy almost fits!

i wonder if i used the CB pro drive, that's not shifting anything. do i still need to pay for a yearly audit?

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

If you are using nothing but the digital releases I certainly don't think an audit would be required.

it shouldn't, but if displaying CB trademarks from a computer is the criteria for filing a lawsuit.......which it is.......that would put HDMP in the same category as shifted discs where the only way to show compliance is through audit.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

The problem with your analogy is that no one from Sound Choice the Sleps or anyone else has every changed stance at all. They have always said that Shifting the media was wrong but they would tolorate it as long as you were 1:1, that stance is still the same. The problem most people seem to have is having to prove they are 1:1.

So my only question is who are all these KJs who are selling their used disc in such a quanity so far above that of what is being manufactured? In other words if 1000 disc are produced and 500 are sold how can 5,000 KJs be buying "used" disc?

I am not sure because I have not yet tried the product but if it is like the SC GEM series a difference in the logo is used and it shows up when it is displayed. Also isn't there a licensing number that pops up on the screen with the HD system?

:repost:

still its a site u can goto to read about the lawsuits..... so do what floats ur boat and if it sinks it sinks. if it has the motor and a sump then woohooo.....


cheers

_________________
:angel:

yes there is, forgot that part, thanks

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

First indicating that as long as the KJ is 1:1 media shifting would be tolerated, then stating that media shifting is only tolerated with their explicit permission AND and with an audit is a stance change.

We are both in agreement that most KJs gone after probably can't produce discs. I am just saying that IF they have discs and are still dragged into court with SC claiming that they did not have permission to media shift, any two cent lawyer is going to point to their previous statements regarding being 1:1. Any argument from SC based upon a slip of paper inserted into a jewel case as being sufficient notification of a new requirement is full of holes.

I am not saying that this would ever happen. If approached for verification that a KJ is 1:1, I would think anyone that is 1:1 would show them such discs. But, there is always the possibility of an ecnounter with someone wishing to take the thing through the court system.

That's what I'm talking about. Let there be a trial with a jury get some legal history going, in the form of a judgement being handed down. Then we will all see if any of the suits have any merit or not. Not have these out of court settlements that really don't establish one thing or another.

Does anybody know if the news channels have already been contacted to cover this story yet to see what is going on?

Tommy,

The only real change in stance happened many years ago when SC said that using the product on a computer was not allowed. They were trying to do a propriety hard drive player of their own for their product. But that idea just wasn't going to fly with those KJs out there who's intentions were to pirate the product anyway. So that is when the only change is stance ever came about.

You can't make the claim of someone being "dragged into court" and at the same time say they are "wishing to take the thing through the court system". Either they are being dragged or they are wanting to. You can't drag someone who is running ahead of you to the same destination.

The simple truth of the matter is if a KJ is truly 1:1 even though still in technical violation SC and CB are working with them and releasing them from the lawsuits, (if they want to be worked with) So far I don't think anyone who is true 1:1 has been pursued any further, once they show that they are.

I think the nail has been hit directly on the head.

The major issue that seems to pit KJ's against the manufacturers is:

having to prove that you are 1:1

and then, having to enter into a binding agreement to maintain that status and cooperate with the other party to the agreement to verify that you maintain that status.

I don't see this as an invasion of my privacy. I accept that once I enter into the public domain and begin to engage in commercial activities... my right to privacy is severely limited by the simple fact that I am in PUBLIC.

carry on...

_________________
Never the same show twice!

YOU don't see it as an invasion of YOUR privacy. But your opinion does not invalidate those who do.

Birdofsong

_________________
Birdofsong

I glad to see that at least you entertain the idea that maybe hosts have some rights, at least that is a start.

Agreed. My opinion does not invalidate those who do not agree.

The fact that your personal right to privacy is irrelevant and forfeit when you are engaged in commercial activity in public does invalidate the "invasion of privacy" issue.

If you only did karaoke at home or in a venue not open to the public, then you'd be in the clear anyway.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

I think you are confused on the right-to-privacy and the right-to-privacy-in-a-commercial-activity issue. I don't quite understand how anyone - you, me or anyone else - can suddenly lose their rights just because they are in a public setting and/or in a commercial activity.

This is not like videotaping a cop or taking someone's picture without permission (a paparazzi). In those situations, - because you are physically in a public place - you don't lose any right to privacy. However, because you are in a public place, you will lose any "expectation of privacy" and therefore your activity can and does become public, within the confines of the public place. You can be photographed, etc. But that can also work the other way: if you are in a public place - let's say a store that is open to the public (and it's a commercial enterprise too) - and a person goes into a fitting room and some bozo photographs them and plasters it all over the net, they are in deep trouble. Because in that situation, the person in the fitting room has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and is protected by the very same right you claim is somehow forfeited. Jack Nicolson smacked the snot out of a paparazzi that photographed him in the men's locker room at a country club. No assault charges were ever filed and no photographs ever distributed because he had a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

The difference here is that you are asserting that merely because you are operating a "commercial enterprise" with karaoke songs, whether you have purchased them on discs or via download or even a hard drive (from CB) you have somehow forfeited any right to privacy regarding that property and/or the USE of that property?

I don't see how you have forfeited anything.