Karaoke Forums

Well, you're forgetting that if he does what he says he can do... it's a violation of "Trade Dress" isn't it Mr. Harrington?



Intentionally stripping away identifying marks under the guise "to improve the wipes or use their own graphics?"

Unless of course Mr. Harrington would like to confirm that stripping out logos as is mentioned above (including the "Sound Choice" logo) and or changing the "trade dress" is a perfectly acceptable practice... even for "regular old KJ's." You know, in order to improve the wipes or use their own graphics.....

You have no idea how much I'm laughing now....

that this thread has become a step-by-step instruction manual on how to pirate....

authored by a multi-rigging, "Sound Choice Certified", Gem owner & "Advance" customer....


When are you going to post how to crack Karaoke Songfinder?.... I'm sure lots of people would like a free kiosk... Is it on IRC?.... Torrent?....


(Next thing you know, someone will put up a website that says; "We're Getting The Pirates Back Together..... Tune in the Summit!")

So, question: Zoom doesn't permit Canada or US downloads, correct?

Is there a way to circumvent this? Because Zoom is the only karaoke site I know that has one specific song and I wanted to buy it for my boss's show. I live in Canada.

Replacing or changing the trade dress on the actual copy you own is OK, at least with respect to the karaoke producer's rights and probably as to the publisher.

Replacing the trade dress on a copy you make or acquire illegally is a copyright infringement and may be a type of trademark infringement known as "reverse passing off." Depends on the exact circumstances.

So, take a SC song. Replace the entire CDG file with your own, what proof is there of wrongdoing??

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

We can digitally fingerprint the music and compare it to our tracks to determine if a SC track was used for the audio, then use that as the basis for a reverse passing off claim and/or, if we own the copyright, sue for copyright infringement.

Or we could sue under state law for unfair trade practices.

Or we could just hand that information over to the affected music publisher and they can sue you for producing karaoke tracks without a license.

Seems like a lot of work and a lot of hassle and risk on the part of a pirate--and make no mistake, it is piracy--just to avoid paying for your damn music.

And anyone (including Chris Avis) can strip that audio fingerprint completely in minutes and upload it to IRC..... matey.... Just ask 'em, he seems pretty darn experienced. There are ways to fingerprint the audio so that even Chris wouldn't be able to mess with it without destroying it in the process.... but I'm not an educator, I'll leave that to the pros.

I'm sure that being sued for producing karaoke tracks without a license is something you know a lot about. However, you are already assuring your certified and gem owners that "it is highly unlikely" that a publisher would sue them when you explain why you can't grant them a right you don't have..... (but that's none of my business.)

Well I would disagree. It doesn't seem like a lot of work, hassle or even risk, but I would agree that it's piracy.

Interesting... so the upcoming "Advance" digital album you just might produce for download falls squarely within these parameters and your customers are free to strip your logo entirely, "change the trade dress on the actual copy you own' and/or re-make the cdg portion and operate risk-free....

And thanks for the confirmation that KJ's "own" and not just "license" the actual copy they paid for.

(click, snap, print, file)

You don't understand what is meant by "digital fingerprint." A digital audio track has a fingerprint that consists of the various frequencies and amplitudes of the sounds contained in it at each point in time in the track. This fingerprint survives copying and conversion to other formats, and all that's required to examine it is to make a recording of it being played and run it through software designed to analyze it for that purpose. The only way you can modify it is to change the actual sounds on the track. You can't "strip out that audio fingerprint completely in minutes.

Now, if you're talking about an embedded digital signature...that's maybe a different story. That could be removed through blanking, backmasking, or some other similar technique, but you'd have to know where it was and you'd have to know the code and extent of the signature. It might be easy to find, or it might be completely undetectable without having an unsigned version to compare it to.



I wouldn't know anything about it, as I've never been sued for that.

Or are we talking about "companies I represent" again? I'm never sure whether you mean me personally or something broader.

The difference between Slep-Tone's situation and the situation I described, of course, is that Slep-Tone did have licenses; thus, no judgments.

We tell certified operators, GEM series licensees, and others that we can't grant them rights we don't have, which seems like the responsible thing to do. (Would you rather we told them that we can grant them rights we don't have?) However, we have been repeatedly told by music publishers that they have no interest in pursuing people who have 1:1 correspondence on legitimate product. They don't even want to pursue actual out-and-out pirates because the expense versus the return isn't worth it. Would they would be open to making an example of someone if they were sufficiently motivated and the evidence were handed to them on a silver platter? That depends. How did your experience with that turn out?

I have been laughing at most of what you post for about 5 years now. But this isn't really any laughing matter, is it?

This is your credibility on the line.

Being caught in a bold faced lie, perhaps false advertising, and perhaps making false claims about security features that could have a material impact on customers.

I didn't expect you to fess up to your lie about the watermarking, but it gratifying watching you avoid addressing it and steer people away from you by attacking SC (anyone NOT expect that?) and once again trying to paint me as a pirate.

By the way, I am not done with this watermarking issue. You chose to latch on to Sound Choice for the last decade regarding their activities and it's time you got a dose of your own medicine.

I purchased another copy of "The Closing Song" a few moments ago and compared it to the copy I purchased almost ***34 months ago*** Can anyone guess what the results of my test were? ***IDENTICAL***

A good friend of mine is a senior security researcher with http://www.checkpoint.com and I have asked him to inspect all of the files I have used in my testing and provide a detailed report. He has much more advanced tools at his disposal and is an actual expert at this stuff.

_________________
-Chris

I highlighted the real answer. You can "change the sounds on the track" just enough to obliterate the fingerprint" and leave the audible recognition in place. (i.e. your computer couldn't spot it and no one would notice it either in a noisy bar)

You want cheese on that baloney sandwich? Because once again, it sounds good on the surface, but like a UFO.... there's no evidence that what you're describing is real.

I did say "know about" and not "experienced" counselor... "words mean things" remember? Let's try instead not to understand them and act like a confused victim.

Besides, if the former Slep-Tone actually did have licenses, there would have been no long-lasting suits would there? Just like being certified right? Show your license and get a free dismissal.... but it just didn't seem to work that way either did it? Some of the suits against them took years and almost all ended in "settlements" instead of "judgments." Nice try at the smoke and mirrors on that one.

I would think the "responsible thing to do" is to tell them that the action they are doing --because it's not a right you can grant them -- is a violation of the publisher/owner's intellectual property rights. But it's far more effective if you just sugarcoat it for them and leave that part out.

It worked fine because simply telling the truth "sufficiently motivated" others to increase the settlement check substantially. That was of course, (wink, wink) "paid for by an insurance company...." again.

So how expensive is an insurance policy to cover infringement?

When I was at Microsoft I was fortunate enough to learn about a lot of things including security features related to software and digital files. Visited the FBI offices several times when I lived in Texas. They had some pretty cool toys back in the early 2000's. I am sure they have cooler ones now. Bit I digress....

I know what I know because of the 20 year career I have (and continue to have) in the IT industry. I still have a full time day job as a technical content developer and instructor (educator if you will). Before my IT career kicked off, I spent 15 years in the underground as a hobbiest and hacker. I never stopped hacking actually and a few years back I started studying to take the Certified Ethical Hacker exam (http://www.eccouncil.org/Certification/ ... cal-hacker). Alas, life got in the way and I never took it, but I learned some valuable information along the way. Perhaps it is time to refresh my skills some and try to knock this out.

_________________
-Chris

OK let me see if I have this straight now. If someone gets and SC track and strips off the .cdg part and replaces it with their own that SC can tell that it is their music through various means. SC investigators are going to know by listening to the music in a crowded bar that it is SC music even tho the screen shows someone else's graphics.

It has been said here on other posts that lots of companies are using 1 backing track and their own graphics for a range of various songs.

IF (their's that word again) a company were to do this and sell the CDG how are WE as KJ's supposed to know that it is not legit? Then some SC or is it PEP investigator hears the music in some crowded bar and thinks hey that is SC music, reports it, you are going to sue a KJ for using that which they in all sincerity bought to use. We as KJ's usually don't own the equipment needed to check the music nor do we really care. We buy in good faith that what we are buying is legal.

_________________
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

Only if the fingerprint (watermark) exists. Otherwise you are changing it for no reason (or perhaps because someone lied to you about it being there in the first place)




Here's the full sandwich. Don't choke on it.....

An embedded digital signature can come in the form of a certificate (which can be removed completely without impacting the integrity of the rest of the data) or a "code" such as a serial number, name, or other unique identifiable information embedded in software, firmware or even music and pictures (depending on the implementation, it can be very easy or very difficult to remove).

Signatures can be "whole" meaning the entirety of the signature resides in one contiguous space within the digital file making it easily to remove and fill with other data including blank space without impacting the integrity of the remaining data.

Signatures can be "dispersed" meaning the information is scattered throughout a digital file based on an algorithm. One must know the algorithm to locate where the pieces of the signature reside. While these can be changed or removed, due to the nature of the of the dispersion of the data and they way most data is read by applications, changing or removing the signature can impact the ability to read or use the remaining data.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/librar ... 60%29.aspx
http://www.embedded.com/design/safety-a ... ffectively
http://mil-embedded.com/articles/protec ... fications/
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/librar ... 85%29.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking

Knowledge is power.....




Sorry....you lost me at truth.

_________________
-Chris

It never works that way. "I didn't do it" isn't a reason for the court to dismiss a case early on. Otherwise, virtually every case would get dismissed early on, because virtually every civil defendant denies the allegations.

I wanted to take a moment and apologize to everyone. This topic was in regards to Zoom Karaoke and Mr. Blackie's company. I got into talking about my services and what all I do from guide vocal work to hopefully some authoring for companies who can not be named due to contract agreements.

I do know many companies outsource their project but there has to be agreements made between the company and (Work for hire company tied to the outsourcing.)

With that being said, I think Zoom is a wonderful product but I personally was voicing my opinion on a new authoring system I have but have not put to use yet. Yes, there are companies who even hire out authors because of the timing and or amount of songs they can author at a fast pace leaving an attractive finished result. These authors have to send everything they worked on including the file format they saved it in. Along with the .bin / cdg+mp3 320kb and Hi Def is asked MP4. Once this process is finished and invoices are paid and sent back via FTP etc. The service files used are permanently deleted.

I work with many regular (non/ karaoke) writers and arrangers using the same work for hire method. Just like karaoke every i has to be dotted and every t crossed.


Via this thread posting (ZOOM DOWNLOADS)
That was all I was getting to and it was like it went from a small conversation to a full blown mess.

Perhaps the topic of authoring should be moved to a new thread and this thread sticking to Zoom Downloads. (Let's all shake hands and if there is disagreement, just agree to disagree. Problem solved.)

Chris, I will be with you soon on those disc #'s.

Words mean things... remember?

I specifically said; "SHOW your license." If you can't.. show a license, a confirming e-mail, a recorded telephone conversation, a text message or nothing.... then you have nothing...

It's that simple.

They couldn't... because they didn't..

Courts dismiss things quickly all the time.... and you know that...

Kind Regards...

Let's see... I have a law degree from a prestigious school and fifteen years of litigation experience.

You have... something less than that, to be charitable. But you "know" that courts dismiss cases quickly "all the time" as a result of defendants presenting evidence that causes the case to be dismissed.

Sorry, but that's just not how it works. Cases do get dismissed early--because the plaintiff didn't provide enough factual detail to support the case, or the facts alleged--even assuming them to be true--don't add up to a claim.

But it is a rare case that gets dismissed because the defendant shows some contrary evidence early in the case. I won't say it never happens. If you don't believe me, go ask any other litigator. They'll tell you the same thing I did.

This is supposed to impress me somehow? There are lots of schlubs with "a law degree from a prestigious school" with "years of experience" and they end up the worst pieces of crap-o-la on the planet. Didn't your partner Cipriani [sp] also have a "degree from a prestigious school" just before he was in hot water with the bar? Why do you think there are little things like sanctions against attorneys with "law degrees from prestigious schools?" Because they cheat. I do believe even you've had a few sanctions delivered directly to you from the courts as well.... Shall I look them up and post them here? Might make for some very "prestigious reading" for those that blindly believe every syllable of yours is some kind of pearl of wisdom. I can hardly believe you'd be able to find anything as telling (or compelling) against me in my line of work.


I have "something DIFFERENT than that" to be sure. I'd never want to be a lawyer because most people hate them... and with good reason. Why would I want to be something most people hate? But go ahead and try to convince me that the court will continue a case where a defendant has presented evidence sufficient to warrant an immediate dismissal... (dig up a few citations if you can) Oh yeah, courts love to keep their dockets full of crap like this that they can just save to dismiss later... after the defendant has run up some more legal bills... sure... I believe you... (wink, wink)

It happens whenever it happens, rare or not. No court wants to drag out a worthless claim...

How about you show proof of serialized watermarking on the Red Peters tracks? If you can't show some sort of agreement, contract, email chain, recorded conversation, text message, etc.... then YOU have nothing.

It's that simple.

I am not asking for the code or the algorithm that makes it work, just proof that it is being done at all.

We know you don't go silent when you think you are right, say why so quiet on this topic now?

_________________
-Chris