Karaoke Forums

One thing I think we are losing sight of is the fact only one label SC is requiring any kind of confirmation of ownership of material at this time. One manu out of all the rest. They are the only one that is trying to enforce any type of industry standard, as far as commercial karaoke, is concerned. If such control is a desirable situation for the industry, why haven't the other manus followed suit? Why hasn't some type of collection agency been formed by manus to try and recover monies owed them, like the publishers have formed? Is it that many feel such an enterprise is simply bottom feeding and they don't want to be bothered with it, since the profit margin is so negligible? Some things to ponder have a blessed day.

???

Are you going to answer the question I asked above,

(You buy a download- for which you NEVER had a disc.. You're not "1:1". can you use it? Keep in mind that only SC uses the 1:1 bit to any great length in the karaoke industry. Can you use that download, or does 1:1 ONLY have relevance to SC?

Careful now.....") or are you just doing another drive-by?

-----------------------------------------------------------

OK, you'll notice that Timberlea didn't answer, and Chris's answer is barely a partial. Know why? Timberlea dug himself a hole.

He could either claim that any downloads could not be used in shows because they don't conform to "1:1" ( and despite BS to the contrary, SC tracks HAVE been made availablr via download over the years by T-soft (the original), Dopi, and I BELIEVE Clark, for short times, and maybe others), though "1:1" is SC's formula- no one else has brought it up...

OR

Downloads COULD be used in shows, which would mean that the "1:1" is strictly something that SC wishes for.

Those are the ONLY two answers. No need to debate, simply take your pick. I would assume that download hosts could give a crap about "1:1", which would mean that all pro-SC methodology hosts and non-download( unless they bought the discs AND the downloads) and 1:1, because if they aren't, they are the biggest hippocrites on the planet.

So, any pro-SC methodology hosts using downloads without owning the discs? Hmm?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Awaiting your reply as well, Kjflorida....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

what they are saying is that if you do not have written permission from a manu to media shift than you must delete it. from what i have been able to assertain from the ones i got ahold of Pioneer(who have no real karaoke dept anymore), PHM, Zoom, Sunfly, Sybersound, All Star, Priddis (only doing backing tracks now), and Singing Machine, i get affirmative responses that they have no issue with media shifting at all and i can almost see the confused dog look just for asking.
take that as you will.

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

As you have noted, SC is the only company talking about 1:1 or doing any enforcement around it. From the SC point of view, 1:1 refers to a relationship between a physical disc and a copy to another disc or to a ripped format. Downloads are (obviously) different and the 1:1 would presumably mean 1 download for every 1 rig it will be used on.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

This gets back to the point only SC is enforcing any type of standard. They want that standard to be industry wide, but only have the authority over their product, unless the host uses their product there is nothing they can do. If you want to avoid the hassle of dealing with their legal process the answer is simple don't use their product. Have a blessed day.

OK so the ones you contacted said "No Problem" but did they give you written permission? From what I gather the Judge and SC want written permission.
What about all the bogus manus out there that made discs and really didn't have any permission to do so, (and I know there are a lot), they aren't going to give you written permission as they don't have it to give but you do have a disc from them...is it legal material or not?

_________________
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

"What about all the bogus manus out there that made discs and really didn't have any permission to do so, (and I know there are a lot), they aren't going to give you written permission as they don't have it to give but you do have a disc from them...is it legal material or not?"

Per the injunctions No it is not legal to use in a digital format. However if you own the disc you could play from disc without written permission from what I understand.

One local that has a permanent injunction did run shows from disc for a short time before getting out of the business. I got a good deal on some used equipment when he decided not to do the heavy hauling.

It may not be legal but who is going to call the host on it? These other manus have long since gone the way of the buffalo, they are freeware status material, orphans whatever you want to call them. Now I know the certified hosts are going to say at some future point these orphans will get adopted by someone, if they are illegal in the first place why bother? It is a loophole which any host can use, and there is not much that can be done about it. If you can play the disc without written permission, it would seem you could shift it as well, since the original producer of the music is no longer in business, or had no right to produce and sell the material in the first place. Have a blessed day.

P.S. These injunctions only apply to those hosts or venues who ran afoul of SC, any host that is not under these injunctions would be free to use whatever material they may have in their library any way they choose. It is only by using the SC product you open the door to having the rest of your library taken to legal task.

Lone Ranger,

"It may not be legal but who is going to call the host on it? "

The Judge that issued the injunction will "call them on it"

"Per the injunctions No it is not legal to use in a digital format. However if you own the disc you could play from disc without written permission from what I understand."

This discussion has been on the Judges rulings and injunctions did you get lost somewhere?

One problem these injunctions only apply to where the particular judge has jurisdiction and cannot be applied nationwide. Also the injunctions only apply to the companies named in the original suit brought by the plaintiff. They do not apply to other companies operating in the said judge's jurisdiction. In other words these injunctions are limited in scope and can't be applied industry wide. Have a blessed day.

P.S. In other words this judge is in Florida? His injunctions don't mean a thing in California.

Boy, you seem to know a lot about the FEDERAL court system!

_________________
-- Mark

I am almost to the point of concluding that my questions/observations are being avoided for some reason, but just in case, here they are AGAIN...

I'm not trying to dodge your question. I honestly don't know how a court would confront the scenario. We do include, in our complaints, language that explains why the use of pirated copies of others' tracks is detrimental to SC and its legitimate customers. The Lanham Act, § 43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) states as follows:

Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which ... is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person ... shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

Now, that's a mouthful, but it seems to me that if Person A is falsely using Person B's trademark in a way that causes a likelihood of confusion as to Person A's affiliation with Person B, and that causes damage to Person C in some way, then Person C can use that section to bring a lawsuit against Person A.

I agree that it raises some issues that could be litigated over, and I'm not aware of any appellate decisions that are directly on point. Generally, standing is a question that is determined on a case-by-case basis. One of the ways in which we limit ourselves to try to stay within the standing requirement is that we generally only ask for injunctive relief (deletion of the tracks for which the defendant lacks original media and/or permission to have them on the hard drive) on that question, which makes the standing question easier to resolve in our favor for various reasons.

That's good HL, but when I mean BOYCOTT SC, I am not talking about being illegal. IE; using pirated material. I never have and never will. But just to show my disgust with the the unfairness of these lawsuits. IE; SC going after legal host and kjs and not bothering the smaller veunes, IE; Quincy, Il., or Redneckville, where ever. I am BOYCOTTING SC.

_________________
Still love to sing!

You have the right to do that, and believe me when I say we are not interested in stopping you from doing so. If you have SC discs, you're only hurting yourself, and if you don't, we'd prefer that you "boycott."

But I would be remiss if I didn't ask...do you really think we're intentionally targeting people whom we believe have 1:1 correspondence? I assume that's what you mean by "legal hosts."

NO I don't, but to many legal host have been caught up in this while a lot of illegal host have not even been looked at. As far as hurting myself; no cause SCs lack of lawsuits in other areas of the globe have killed venues that were once profitable for both host and SC. Now pirates have moved into smaller venues and sucked the life out of it and made it so legal host can not afford to compete.

_________________
Still love to sing!

How many "legal" hosts do you suspect have been caught up in a lawsuit?

_________________
-- Mark