Karaoke Forums

I don't understand the difference here..... If you purchased an UNAUTHORIZED CD, wouldn't the mere fact that you played it in public be a copyright infringement the same as playing that download you just purchased?

IMHO: there is no difference. Whether you "direct your computer" or not. LOTS of copyright infringement occurs either way: whether on a download OR already stored on a compact disc. Remember the discussion is about the "delivery of intellectual property" not necessarily the shipping method or other container of that property.

Not every manu provides that assurance.



Only if you are uncertain.



I find it hard to believe that a music publisher would speak with you about its license arrangements with a licensee, and since you have provided no details, I'm going to speculate that you don't have any.

But your inquiry is meaningless. The fact that someone at a music publisher can't put his hands on a license for a specific song does not mean that the license does not exist. For one thing, licensing requires only one holder of the underlying copyright to agree, so if multiple publishers have rights--something that happens frequently--the copyright owner you contacted may not even be the rights holder who signed the license. Moreover, even if there were no license, you would be powerless to do anything about it, because you don't have the right to enforce copyright belonging to someone else. Meanwhile, you rather famously don't play SC, so you bear no risk of having a publisher come after you for copyright infringement.

So this little exercise begs me to ask: to what end might you be making inquiries? Could it be Sound Choice Derangement Syndrome rearing its ugly head again?

Please read carefully:

The purchaser (of an unauthorized CD) has not (yet) committed a copyright infringement merely by taking delivery of the CD.

Receiving an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work is not a direct copyright infringement, because the act of receiving, by itself, does not fall within any of the exclusive rights of copyright. (It may subject the recipient to vicarious liability on an inducement theory, but not direct infringement.) If the unauthorized copy is then used in a show, for example, then it may well be an infringement.

Oh, come on...I've never known you to have a humble opinion.

You're speculating that he's either lying or the statement is a hallucinatory product of some mental illness brought about by issues with your client? And barring either of the above...it must be a mistake with the publisher? Come on, Mr. Harrington...you'll have to do better than that.

"Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!"

_________________
Birdofsong

Okay... You're welcome to do that.


Read my post again.... S-L-O-W-L-Y if it would help.
Did I say anything about one not "existing?"

I simply relayed the response...

I do believe you're jumping to conclusions counsel.



I disagree with your assertion that only one needs to grant permission. Can you back that up with a little more than; "because I said so?"



Again, you're jumping to conclusions. I'm perfectly aware that I'm not in a position to enforce the copyrights of others that might be infringed on by a third party. But there's nothing wrong with letting them know is there? Wouldn't you want me to tell you if someone is infringing on your property?

Isn't that exactly what many of your followers do now? Inform you of others that might be infringing on your client's trademark property? You have an entire "tip line" for reporting right?

So what's the problem here?

Are you somehow concerned that the statute of limitations on copyright doesn't start until the copyright owner is made aware of the infringement.... not when the infringement actually occurs.... So an infringement committed 10 years ago can still come back to bite an unlicensed entity..... Of course, if there were no infringement, there wouldn't be any problem would there?



Like you said; getting assurances is just good business practice.... and I agree.



You know... I'm not back here 12 hours and you're already calling me names and/or diagnosing me of one of your invented illnesses? Sticks 'n stones....

Okay, just this one time.... but this is all you get. This was from the one license the dog didn't eat:

Since he's provided no verifiable details, there really isn't anything to do but speculate. That is what he's inviting, right?

According to you it's not.... it's "hallucinatory" remember?

(you missed me didn't you?)

You relayed something that you claim to be a response to an inquiry, the details of which you won't reveal. It's not much of a leap to conclude that you are, once again, stirring up dust in a misguided belief that it will cause us trouble.



17 U.S.C. § 201 makes joint authors co-owners of the whole work. 17 U.S.C. § 106 grants exclusive rights (specifically, the right to exclude others) to copyright owners. A license is nothing more than a refusal to exercise the right to exclude, so one co-owner of a joint work can grant a (non-exclusive) license in the whole work. There is a lot of case law on point as this is settled law. I'm sure you can find some if you try. I don't have time at the moment.



No problem at all. I'm amused that you have enough time to waste on the question...but, then again, derangement has a way of reordering a person's priorities.



That is actually not a matter of settled law, but, as you say, it really doesn't matter, because there isn't any infringement.



I haven't called you any names, not this time and not ever. So your statement is kind of like me saying, "You're not back here 12 hours and you're already committing murder and/or writing cryptically about supposed conversations with unnamed music publishers."

As for SCDS...I think most people can recognize and appreciate the humor in that.



I don't really have time to do it, as I am still at the office and it is 9:40, but I am pretty good with Photoshop and could pretty easily come with an image that appears to be your name and signature (carefully redacted, of course) on a "contract" for, say, the purchase of sex toys and pornographic videos, but that would not make you a raging sex fiend. Weak sauce, my friend.

The "details of which" are in a filing cabinet in NC... start there. Besides, I wouldn't want to "expose closely-guarded sensitive trade information" would I? In the meantime... I can rest comfortably in the knowledge that this response is like itch powder in your undies....




Then please explain why there were so many lawsuits filed against your client for copyright infringement by "co-owners" that specfically stated their "percentage of ownership" to assert their right to sue in the first place.

(more than a handful of plaintiffs can't be wrong)





You're not the least bit "amused." And, now you're name calling again.... couldn't resist could you? I love it when you can't explain something away then suddenly it has something to do with the questioner.... Don't like the question? Just call the person asking names... that'll do it....




uh... I believe you just referred to me as "deranged" did you not? That, counsel is in fact "a name."

Equating me to a "murderer" is somehow NOT name-calling?

"Cryptically" and "unnamed" are only as far as you are concerned. I have no incentive to share anything with you, what would the point be? Besides, your client won't even guarantee that I won't be sued for actually using the product I purchased.... but they'll indemnify those that hand them money... What do we call that again?....

Besides, there are others that have full copies..... (spooky, ain't it?)



I still think there are more lawyer jokes than jokes about karaoke hosts...



Oooookay!.... Whatever you say.... My forgery skills aren't developed at all...
(This is from a different publisher/rights owner):


NOTE: These images are "screen snapshots" off of pdf files..... I have purposely redacted (removed or muddled) the identifying information.

If Mr. Harrington would like to discredit them as "fakes" simply because I refuse to grant him access to the entire document, that is not my problem.

But it is interesting that if you ask for a license copy from a manufacturer, it's a "big secret" but if you have it, it's "a fake."....

You vastly overestimate my concern.



"So many lawsuits" = three lawsuits, each of which featured two related plaintiffs. I find nothing in the papers for those suits that indicates a statement of "percentage of ownership," so did you just make that up?



Considering that it's really not "more than a handful," and considering that they didn't do what you suggested...



I am in fact quite amused by it. And I'm not explaining anything away. There's nothing to explain away. The "evidence" you've put forward says that at some point a couple of people signed a document with illegible signatures. You're the one trying to make something sinister out of it.



I didn't call you "deranged." I said that you suffer from derangement. One is name-calling; one is not.



Bless your heart.



"Cryptically" and "unnamed" as far as everyone on this discussion board is concerned. Your incentive to share the documents is to demonstrate your credibility. I can see why you wouldn't care about that; you've never cared about it in the past. When you state that an unnamed publisher can't find licenses in his files for 7 out of 8 unnamed songs in a list, that means nothing. If you had the evidence, you'd release it. The fact that you won't makes it clear to me that you don't have it, but you'd like others to believe that you do. That's why you post snippets and fragments, depriving us of the context the full documents would provide, or that the names of the people and entities involved would allow. If you had something that, in full, supported your allegations, you couldn't post it fast enough.



We don't indemnify anyone, whether they pay money or not. Our agreements make that very clear. The fact that you are using the term "indemnify" to refer to a guarantee that we would not sue tells me only that you are unclear on the definition of "indemnify."

Your wife asked me for an iron-clad 100% guarantee that we wouldn't sue you if you started using your SC discs. That's not something I can offer. The reason I can't offer it has nothing to do with sloppiness or an intent to sue you bar nothing or the lack of ability, as a general proposition, to distinguish between playing discs and playing from a hard drive. The chances of suing you for playing from discs are very, very remote and would result only from the compounding of several mistakes. With the suggestions I made--which were very reasonable--they are so close to zero as to be disregarded. However, they get larger when, as she described it, it would be difficult for the investigator to see the area where discs would be stored and loaded, and if you refuse to take even the simplest of steps to make it clear that you are playing SC from discs.



There are a lot more lawyers than there are karaoke hosts.



It's not anyone's "problem." I haven't said it's a fake. I just have no way of identifying it. Do you realize how many documents are in our license files? It's roughly 400,000 pages.

Besides, doesn't the existence of these documents prove that the licenses exist? Hasn't it been your contention that they don't?

WOW, you two sound like an old married couple. I think it's time for a divorce.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I believe a debate from different viewpoints is a great way to gain information- and I sure as heck open my fat yap often enough.

However, negative personalizations in a debate actually weaken the respective positions- ESPECIALLY when it comes from both debators.

They serve as distractions from the points of information, and close down the communication. If one precedes their point with something to the effect of " Listen to me, you jerk", the alleged "jerk" does the opposite- stops listening.

In other words, why not say what has to be said, and leave the personal crap out of it?

Just thinking out loud. Don't mind me....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Old Married Couple indeed..

Good call, Joe..

OK boys.. Play nice now..

And I agree...

Mr. Harrington has simply made a grand assumption that because I won't reveal all the information to him, that there must not be any information to start with.

I get it.

What cracks me up is that here I'm actually demonstrating that there ARE some licenses..... and he's having a cow and calling even those suspect....

I think he's been talking in so many circles, he's forgotten where he started...

No matter.

I know what I know and he knows what he knows....

I'm good with that.

It is interesting information though..... total number of licensed copies.... cost for lyric reprint, cost for the mechanicals, etc... Date on the license versus the date they were first sold.... territories limiting sales... all good stuff...

(gotta love email, it's cheap and it saves a lot of filing space)

J.D., it was an enjoyable few weeks of people asking questions and getting answers along with civilized debate without trying to stir the pot with half-a$$ed garbage. Oh well, time to get the popcorn.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Exactly what are you talking about timberlea?

And those "mistakes" are completely under your control, no one else. The investigator doesn't file a suit.... you do. You simply want a blessing to continue to freely make "mistakes" when it's not necessary and completely avoidable and under your control. You do - in fact - want a license to be sloppy no matter how much you try to dispel it.



Your "suggestions" were far from reasonable:

Your suggestions that we post placards (more free advertising?) and reconfigure our hardware to do what? Accommodate your investigators?

Oh, and let's not forget that if a patron were to bring in a disc, we should have a "log sheet" with a built-in release that they own the disc... once again to make it easier for who?

Or perhaps we should simply take on the same paranoid actions of others who routinely photograph said discs with a cellphone.... print them out and neatly file them away "just in case" there were any problems in the future? (and that's a "certified" Gem owner with a "covenant.")

So no, your suggestions are far from "reasonable" by anyone's standards and require that any host/company operate out of fear. I'm not buying it.

I should not have to change the way I do business because of a product I bought -AND PAID FOR- from any vendor. Including your client.

Your suggestions simply (and once again) reinforce that the decision to drop your client's brand was both wise and prudent.

I'm assuming he is talking about your little vacation Chip.

But at least the reading is getting interesting again since you've
been back....

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet