Karaoke Forums

The analysis I provided above was not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of the Betamax case and its implications. To give you a bit more factual background...Sony was being sued by the film and television studios for vicarious liability for copyright infringement--basically, for making the equipment that made it possible for consumers to engage in copyright infringement more easily. The Supreme Court looked at a lot of factors--the non-commercial nature of time-shifting, the lack of damage, the possibility of using the equipment for non-infringing uses, and others--and concluded that time-shifting in that context fell on the "fair" side of fair use of copyright. The studios did not assert trademark infringement, and they probably could not have because there was no use of the marks in commerce.



One problem with nominative fair use is that second requirement. "Only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary." If you are a legit owner of the disc, you can play from the disc without duplicating the goods at all.




Actually, every court that has considered the question has agreed with us.



Only covered from being sued by soundchoice.
[/quote]

As I have explained, that is probably all that you need to worry about.



As I have explained, we sue KJs who are using unauthorized media-shifted tracks to put on commercial shows. If a KJ is 1:1, they have the opportunity to demonstrate that and get out of the suit for no money.



Whether you "should" have the freedom to make unauthorized duplicates or not is not at issue. It's just not the law. As I have explained, the music publishers' rights are much more limited, and they are getting paid anyway (through ASCAP/BMI, as well as through the royalties SC pays to them).

While you may be able to speak for most hosts, I cannot.

I don't know about yours, but my hosting software logs every singer, every song ever sung and when, sorts by venue, history records that show the most popular songs, records that show who brings discs and who doesn't, birthdays, aniversarys, phone numbers, and last names, notes on trouble makers, comprehensive data from every show ever done. That's just information held by my hosting software alone.

I have occasionally purchased tracks online during a show if I really feet the need. I keep the records of those purchases on that computer. The internet doesn't scare me, nothing has ever happened that I can't easily repair.

How I choose to use my computer is completely irrelevant to whether I should feel comfortable allowing anyone to snoop around in it just because they want to.

This information is nobody's business but mine.

Are you suggesting that we should not only be paying to prove we own our disks, but in addition we should be dictated to what level of personal and business data we should be allowed to keep on our systems?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

We're not auditing to determine whether you have discs, but to determine whether the discs you have match what is on your hard drive. I don't know of a way to do that without examining the hard drive.



Marked discs are not useless on future audits. If they show up, we can use the number to identify the original KJ and contact that person to verify their 1:1 status. That doesn't mean they can't be used...it just means they will be "un-registered" from the original KJ, who may be in trouble, or not.



We are looking for karaoke files. We are not looking at your purchasing logs, marketing materials, surfing habits, emails, or nudie pics. We don't even open those files. On top of that, you're right there while the audit rep is looking at the system. He's looking at file extensions that are associated with karaoke tracks. So unless you are naming your files something like me_and_the_neighbors_hot_18yo_niece.CDG or the_money_i_stole_from_the_offering_plate.MP3, you don't really have to worry about it.



The rectal is strictly optional.



Virtually everyone who has ever failed an audit has owned some discs. It's not just about which discs you own, but which tracks are on your hard drive.

last time I looked, Canada is part of america(reverse capitalization from previous post for effect..... )....course, things do kinda change fast in developing democracies.... ...and I could now be mistaken..

How are the disks marked if the audit is done online/Skype?

_________________
SoundChoice Certification coming soon!

Would you please point me to a particular case so I can better understand?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

We're not auditing to determine whether you have discs, but to determine whether the discs you have match what is on your hard drive. I don't know of a way to do that without examining the hard drive.

Dayum Jim, can't you just take my word on it? What ever happened to trust.......they trusted all those bankers, and all those Wall Street guys for decades....now that lame President, just like Sound Choice is trying to do, went and gave Wall Street a few rules....what a bunch of commies...

With one of those Magic Skyper markers.....

Just for a twist... 20+ years ago we bought cassette karaoke.. played it in a bar (yes, the singer read the lyrics from a typed piece of paper!)... anyway, the soundchoice cassette put on hard drive with lyrics added.. is that illegal if we still own the cassette and the lyrics were provided by SC? (We don't still have the cassettes and haven't put on hd. ) Just thought was a interesting change of subject.

_________________
SoundChoice Certification coming soon!

Sorry guys I didn't realize that in the U.S. when you rent or lease something that you actually own it. Further, I didn't realize you only register your vehicles only once and not every one or two years. The biggest surprise is that your government compensates you for your time when you have to deal with them. Who'd a thunk.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Going out to buy my SkyperMarker! Bye y'all!!

_________________
SoundChoice Certification coming soon!

After a few years of going back and forth over this, I have come to the realization that it takes less hours to have an audit done than the hours one spends on a forum arguing about it. I know, for some it's the principle......

I agree.. for some it's the principle. And I think being named in a lawsuit with no apparent reason or evidence of wrong-doing is bad. BUT, the illegal KJ's out there are affecting us legal ones.. so if I have to throw a little money out to help solve the problem, that's what I'll do. It's for the better of the entire genre.

_________________
SoundChoice Certification coming soon!

They will send you a kit to complete the marking yourself, and you send it back when complete. If there is a blacklight source on your end (which is included) then the markings are visible over Skype.

This sounds better than spending more $ on a SkypeMarker!!

I'm looking forward to getting this completed.. CB is sending their stuff to me this week.. so in just a couple weeks from now I'll have 2 of 3 certificates. I have no idea how Stellar does theirs.. cost etc... But 2 outta 3 ain't bad!

_________________
SoundChoice Certification coming soon!

Businesses in Canada may be afforded all of the enforcement rights the Canadian government has, but I'm pretty sure it's a little different here in the United States of America.

The business=government analagies just don't work.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Nothing in your response answers my question:

If the point of the audit is to verify that you own the discs, why wouldn't producing discs be enough?

I have been talking about a KJ that is 1:1.
And I am talking about the voluntary pre-suit audit.
The proof of 1:1 is in owning the discs.

A pirate would not submit to a pre-suit audit.
But since you seem to be focused on the audit of a pirate;
What if a pirate were to orchestrate his hard drive to only reflect the few discs he owns prior to the audit and then adds his stolen music back to his hard drive after the audit.
How would that be any different than showing his discs without hard drive snooping?

I still don't understand why showing discs isn't enough in itself.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Timberlea,

Why do you keep trying to give Sound Choice the same rights as the government? You do realize that they are separate entitles and do not enjoy the same rights. Yet time and time again, whenever anyone disputes the audits, there you are talking about the government. Sound Choice doesn't provide an education for my children. They don't provide police for my protection. They don't allow me to vote. And they don't have the right to collect taxes.

I don't believe there's even one mention in the United States Constitution about Sound Choice, either. Of course, I'm not Canadian, so yours may be different.

_________________
Birdofsong

I guess you skipped over this part:



The point of the audit is NOT merely to verify that you own "the" discs. It is to verify that you have 1:1 correspondence between your hard drive and your discs.



How do we know that the KJ is 1:1 without looking at the discs and the hard drive? In "1 to 1," one of the "1"s is the hard drive, and the other is the set of discs.



If the pirate removes his pirated tracks and submits to an audit, that's a good thing. We actually want that to occur. The audited KJ will, as part of the audit, provide us with a list of the discs he owns. We actually post the KJ's songbook on the website.

If the KJ then becomes a pirate again by adding back the pirated tracks, then we'll be able to tell that with a checkup visit to his show, or perhaps if tipped off by someone else. Then we run an investigation, and bad things happen (bad for that KJ).

If we don't examine his hard drive, then he can achieve the effect of trying to fool us without actually having to go through the motions. So we examine his hard drive.

Honestly, why would someone who's 1:1 spend so much time thinking up scenarios about how to beat the system?

I actually agree with this. The government has prerogatives that a private corporation does not and should not.

On the other hand, the trademark rights we are asserting--and the copyright that we could assert in some cases--are a property right that is given by the government, and that we use government authority to enforce, so it's not entirely a bad analogy.