Karaoke Forums

So could Bobby and earthling be held for libel in this case if Sound Choice wanted to pursue it?

Just curious.

This is simply put, is just not true. Let's not be misleading here. Those who haven't paid SC off in order for SC not to sue them for using media shifted music are also being sued, despite the fact that they've already paid SC for their discs and despite the fact that SC is not hurt by it one little bit, monetarily, or otherwise.

Bobby--let me rephrase--buying a possilby unlicensed DK SCDG may not hurt DK. It is the other manufacturers/sellers who lose a sale because they cant compete in price with a company that doesn't pay the licensing fees. So someone is hurt.

They aren't hurt because they don't sell DK. Part of the reason I bought the set is because it's DK. I can't buy original DK from a retailer. So, I am not hurting any seller or manufacturer.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Actually, SC is hurt by it, quite a lot.

As I have said many times on this forum, media-shifting without permission damages SC's ability to exert control over the quality of the goods that display its trademarks. That is not trivial at all--it is at the heart of what trademark law is all about.

I went to a show in Arizona earlier this year, run by an unauthorized media-shifter, who played numerous SC tracks during his show. Several of the tracks were of such poor visual and audio quality that the singer had difficulty following along. There were significant voids and other artifacts in the graphics, and there were audio drop-outs and other audio artifacts. Those deficiencies are not consistent with SC's brand image. SC is a premium brand that commands a premium price because its quality is consistently good.

Now, you might say, "Hey, a KJ who rips at 320 will come out with a product that meets SC's QC standards, whether he has permission or not." Or you might say, "Hey, a KJ who is certified but who has cut-rate equipment might produce images and sounds that aren't as good as SC would like." And both of those are potentially true, but the point is not really whether SC's standards are being met. If it were, then you could take some other brand's track that is of a very high quality and put the SC logo on it, and there would be no damage. The point is that SC's trademark rights give it the right to control the quality of the goods the mark is attached to, including deciding whether its mark will be affixed to any particular goods at all. When you rip without permission, you are the one making those choices, and they aren't yours to make without permission. Robbing SC of those choices does have both financial and non-financial consequences for SC, and you're kidding yourself if you think they aren't real.

I think this might be one of those situations where a topic that was fundamentally NOT about SC got turned into an SC topic by people who turn a lot of topics into SC topics in order to voice complaints. I will leave it for others to determine whether a split and reorganization of the topic is appropriate.

As for the discs in question, it is fairly clear to me based upon the price point that the composition royalties are not being paid. For that reason, the purchase of this sets is not "victimless," even if you believe that DK's exit from the US market somehow voids their copyrights. (Legally, it makes no difference, but that is not the point.)

Please. I know KJs who have old crappy discs that skip and jump and screw up the lyrics, both Sound Choice and other brands. Discs get old and break. Some people don't update. You don't seem to care about them. It's all about control with you people.

If Kurt wants to make a proper living, maybe he should join DK and move to Japan.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

You're kidding, right? When's the last time SC did a check on the quality of KJ's media shifted files?
What a farce!



Except when the original disc is scratched and cracked.
I've been to shows where such original discs are played and it was exactly what you describe here, or even worse. Are you going to now tell me that it is somehow different?
Are you going to tell me that when you audit a KJ, you make sure the discs he rips from are near pristine condition so he can get a good, high quality rip from it so it doesn't somehow sully SC's "image"? What if his discs aren't in good shape? Do you deny him the media shift? (Somehow I seriously doubt it!)



Really?? Just what financial damages occur? I'd LOVE to see you argue that successfully in a courtroom. But alas! It will never be.




Actually, YOU did that with this post. I was just pointing out a glaring omission another poster made. Nothing more.

Don't media shift without authorization. Otherwise WHO has been sued that hasn't gotten out of it by showing their discs? There were 2 mistakes out of how many hundreds?

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

Amazing!!!

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

Thank you for correcting my statement concerning the original registration date of soundchoice's mark. It is not my desire to make any misleading statements.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

so here is a yes or no answer that you will refuse to answer.......

i found a track tonight that has a really bad skip to the point of being un-usable.
i am causing SC less damage and costing SC less money than an un-certified host with a perfect rip? how?

as i said, you will not answer, but thought i would put it out there for everyone to see.

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

I know a KJ that had convinced himself he was legit when he downloaded on-the-fly from his irc sharing service because he paid $10 per month for it. He went to great lengths to rationalize his behavior because he had a quick, easy and cheap method of satisfying his singers' requests and refused to see how that could possibly hurt anyone. The problem with his logic was that he was turning a blind eye to the fact that the person he was paying for this music had no right to sell or distribute the music to begin with.

It took some convincing before he finally realized that he was no different than the people who would buy a small lot of goods from the crook who pulled off the big heist. Without the participation of others (however seemingly innocuous) who are willing to turn a blind eye for their own benefit, there would be no gain for the crook who pulled off the original heist and therefore no motivation to attempt the heist in the first place. One's actions can not be justified simply because it appears nobody is looking.

What level of stealing would you deem acceptable?
Is it ok for you to benefit from theft as long as you are not the primary theif?

Let's look at the chain of damage and waste in this particular damageless act:

1. The owners of the original work are due a royalty for each time their work is reproduced and sold. This royalty doesn't get paid to them when someone copies and sells it without proper licensing, hurting those owners directly. This also leads to higher prices for their music in an attempt to make up for their losses, hurting the consumers directly.
2. These same owners must needlessly expend resources to persue and litigate cases of infringement most often ending up with less than what is owed them. This leads to higher prices for their music in an attempt to make up for their losses, hurting the consumers directly. This also leads to the enriching of lawyers which some believe hurts everyone.
3. The music becomes devalued because of the saturation in the market making it harder for anyone within the legal chain of distribution to profit from their efforts.
4. Just as with theives, if the profitablity is removed from the venture the motive for engaging in the venture is lost and so is the availabilty of the music for the rest of us.
5. The KJ down the block who only purchases from legitimate sources is injured by the added costs in overhead needed to maintain a library that is comparable to the KJ that benefits from theft.
6. It becomes increasingly more difficult for the honset upstanding KJ to impress a woman with the size of his hard drive.
7. Our children are watching and learning from our example. By condoning the behavior of benefiting from theft of any kind we risk building a society that is indifferent to predatory behavior and thereby creating a culture of theivery and worse.

I can't say with certainty that the discs you are talking about are a product of theft, but I can say that the rationalizations you are putting forth to justify your purchase just in case they are a product of theft are invalid and very similar to those put forth by the guy who claims he's doing nothing wrong as long as he's not the original theif but simply buying from a theif.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I was under the impression that the only way to legally "media shift" SC content was without SC's permission. Are you suggesting that SC is authorizing the duplication of an artist/publisher's intelluctual property without additional licensing/royalties paid to that artist/publisher? Does that damage the artist/publisher's ability to exert control over their goods?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Sooooo a crappy sound system is OK with SC? Cause I've heard a few of those, maybe they should start renting speakers with the GEM series. Oh, and add some eq lessons too. Guess that doesn't damage the brand, only graphics matter? Harringtonlaw you are starting to sound a little silly now.

So you have a scratched disc, then you do the right thing, either rebuy the disc or go without. Just like you do for any other product that breaks, rebuy, get something similar if available or do without. Why do people think music is different? Just because you can copy it for no or little cost? Gee, I wish I could do that for my car or anything else I own. So in fact by copying, you are damaging manufacturers by never having to buy again.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

The "artist/publisher" does not have any trademark rights in the goods that are at issue here, so that's irrelevant.

SC does not authorize the duplication of the "artist/publisher"'s IP rights. Here is how it works:

1. Ripping a track to a hard drive requires duplication of the content and of SC's trademarks and trade dress.
2. SC has the right to prevent the duplication of SC's trademarks and trade dress on others' goods.
3. As a result, if you want to rip for commercial purposes, you need SC's permission as to the trademarks and trade dress. We can condition that permission on virtually anything we like.
4. It is possible to have our permission yet not have other needed permissions. If you think others' permission is necessary, you need to contact them about it.
5. We don't think you need the "artist/publisher"'s permission as long as you follow our media-shifting policy to the letter, but that's not for us to decide.
6. Regardless, if you don't follow our media-shifting policy, you're not operating legally--you're committing an act of trademark infringement and related torts. Following our media-shifting policy doesn't necessarily make you fully legal, but not following it does make your operation illegal.

This is very debatable. It hasn't be tested in a courtroom at this point, and probably never will, at least not by Sound Choice. The risk of losing and therefore losing their cash cow (read: intimidation of naive KJs) is just far too great.
Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Bahahaha!

I'd like to seriously ask this question of Harringtonlaw, though I don't expect and answer, much less a straight one.
When's the last time SC did a check on the quality of a KJ's media shifted files?

I checked it on the last audit I did, which was in late April or early May. It is part of our routine audit checklist.