Karaoke Forums

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.

Good one.......

That article is over 7 years old....

Older article. One I and a couple others have referenced as well. Even KJ Bill points to this article from his web site and he even sends a link to it via email whenever someone pushes him on the subject claiming that karaoke can't even be copyrighted.

_________________
-Chris

I understand that. It's the content that I find interesting.

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.

I think the content WAS interesting 7 years ago. The problem I see with the article is that it doesn't really accomplish anything.

Myth #1 is for home users and it is pretty clear that NO ONE cares about what home users are doing.

Myth #2 mentions "Fair use involves an analysis of at least 4 factors in relation to the particular circumstances of the case.", but never goes into those factors. Also, it only pertains to COPYRIGHT and not TRADEMARK which is what SC sues for.

Myth #3 - I think we all know that business owners don't know, don't care, and rarely ask about any of this stuff. "knowingly" would be a hard thing to pin anyone down on anyway.

Myth #4 - Again, applies to COPYRIGHT not TRADEMARK which is what SC sues on. "Fair Use" is different for copyrights than for trademarks. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_% ... ark_law%29 )


That said, I would not hesitate to reach out to this particular attorney if anyone came knocking. If nothing else just to ask for an opinion.

_________________
-Chris

The Constitution is 227 years old and it is still relevant ....... for now at least.

Oh come on now.... The Constitution vs Copyright Law?????????? Chris just pointed out the relevancy (or rather lack of it, as what is really relevant to KJs). You might as well compare the Empire State Building to the Statue of Liberty.... after all, they've both been around for a long time too.

To me, this is the most glaring deficiency in this article.

and they were footnoted in the above article at the bottom of the page where footnotes go.

go ahead Harrington law play naïve.

this is off Stanford university's website
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/

Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors

Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court. Judges use four factors to resolve fair use disputes, as discussed in detail below. It’s important to understand that these factors are only guidelines that courts are free to adapt to particular situations on a case‑by‑case basis. In other words, a judge has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination, so the outcome in any given case can be hard to predict.

The four factors judges consider are:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.

_________________
It's all good!

The omission is in the failure to analyze the four fair use factors. There is no analysis in that article.

Cue, that is precisely my point! I don't know law & don't profess to, but legal arguments regardless of how old they are never seem to go away.

Copyright laws came into existence pretty close to the same time that the Constitution was signed. Copyright holders can fight just as hard for their rights as "constitutionalists" fight for the original interpretation of the Constitution. A lawyer takes a suit based on his interpretation of his client's legal stance, and some may think he has a stance and some won't. That holds true for the Constitution as well.

I don't care if it is the Constitution or copyrights it is still all about interpretation.

As you keenly pointed out, they were footnoted. The meat of the article doesn't discuss, clarify, or otherwise mention any of those items.

If a myth is to be debunked and evidence hinted at, then that evidence needs to be obviously and clearly presented and analyzed.

_________________
-Chris