Karaoke Forums

The problem is that as many people who fit a profile know, the police tend to hassle the innocent who happen to fit the profile as well.


The difference between a polite and an overly agressive investigation CAN depend on the actions of the accused, but do not always. All to often, the aggressiveness of the investigation of someone who is innocent is based on the perceptions of those involved on the side of the accusers, and somtimes those perceptions may be wrong. If this was not the case then why do residents of inner cities who are more often victims of crimes fearful of the police even when innocent???

As for the claim that a violation has already been committed by by transferring the media to a computer, and the benevolent manus CHOOSE to not procecute is nothing but a red herring. If that supposed violation was in actually a legally valid and prosecutable crime then there would be a history of laws and court cases that would show it.

Since there is not a history or clear laws, the outrageous assertation that "we could prosecute you for x" but we are not going to because we are nice is utterly false in this case. They could not sucessfully convict anyone for 1:1 format shifting, and they know it.

Sound choice has a history of creating legal confusion for karaoke. They asserted that 1:1 transfer from discs to computers was illegal, until they decided it was when they released the GEM series. Others have also made the assertation that all downloads are illegal, but they are not (although many are). I am willing to bet that within 5 years sound choice will have a system in place for sale of karaoke songs by downloads where they even admit the songs can be used for public performance.

While I can't give you previous cases that may or may not be related to this issue, I can if you are willing tro read it give you the laws that show the violation, under both the copyright and trademark laws, at least what has been shown to me.

Ever read the disc jewel case on the back of the case. It says ALL RIGHTS RESERVED and that includes the right to format shift. If you haven't gotten permission to format shift your discs from the manufacturer then you are in violation of said rights. To get SC's permission one must first prove they have the disc in question. You do that via the audit.

If you have the disc then you have nothing to fear from going through the audit. If however it's a copy from a friend then you have a problem.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

The makers of the cds can write anything they want on a CD or on inserts with it. What they write does NOT make it legally binding.

Format shifting of Karaoke has not been successfully prosecuted EVER in the US for 1:1 compliant KJs. For music alone it has been settled and format shifting of 1:1 music from cd to computer is PERMITTED by legal case history.

Yes karaoke is not music alone, but the karaoke comapanies will have a hard time proving that the precident of court cases that made for music alone does not apply. If they thought they had a good chance of winning they would have tried to argue such a case long ago.

This is not up to SC it is up to the law and the court system, and legal case history.

SC is just using the uncertainty to threaten, and create uncertainty that makes it so people do not buy the legal products of their competitors.

Fred,

What cases have set precident for format shifting music for commercial use?

I think you are talking about the fair use clause in the copy right law and that doesn't cover anyone using any form of music in an effort to make money.

If you know of the cases though I would like to see them can you post them here?

Even Chartbusters is doing the audits now and are going to follow the path that SC has gone down with one exception, no settlements with persons who don't have the discs to back up their collection. What are you going to do when Pop HIts joins the bandwagon.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

That's the way I see it.

Once again "Commercial Use" being confused with "Public Performance".

Public performance involves use of any song product that can be legally owned by a private individual (proven in case history) and payment of the royalties to ASCAP/BMI.

The case history has been listed on this forum in the past for format shifting of music from CD to computer.

Commercial use is a very broad general term that includes a lot of different types of activity, a very small subset of that use is "public performance".

So if as you say a very small subset of "commercial use" is public performance, then what exactly is your point?

Another area I think you have missed is the fact that no song is legally owned by a private individual other than the copyright holder who has the exclusive right to grant (in writting) the right to copy any particular song. The same goes for trademarks as well.

Well this is getting a bit repetitive, but "Commercial Use" is everything a song can be used for, for example putting in a movie, commercial, singing in a public business, including the lyrics in a book or performing a cover version in public.

Of course the artists do not want to negotiate a contract with everyone who wants to sing a karaoke song in pubic, so they use a company to negotiate the rights to do so. That company in the US is either ASCAP or BMI, which represent most artists (a few others are represented by far smaller groups). ASCAP/BMI are the agency that covers the "written permission" to which you refer for karaoke public performance. They also cover public performance of regular music. ASCAP/BMI should be paid by any Bar for example that has a DJ playing music. Of course DJs do not buy music from any special source (although they can). They buy the same music the general public buys, and the public performance (one type of commercial use) is licensed through ASCAP/BMI. That license sold by ASCAP/BMI does not allow the DJ to make a movie using a song they purchased, only to play the song at a public venue.

The companies in the US that make the karaoke make a product that is the same for both the private individual and the KJs. The difference for public performance is the fees paid to ASCAP/BMI.


On the other hand if one wishes to make a movie or commercial, usually the artist or thier representitive must be contacted directly to get approval. Another example of commercial use is to make recordings of a singer performing a karaoke song (as a commercial entity) and selling those recordings back to the singer. That commercial use would require signing of rights away by the artist that are not covered by ASCAP/BMI.

This brings us to the question of Sound Choice. They do NOT have a copyright on the material in the songs that they produce. They merely are pubishing something someone else has a copyright on. In theory they had to pay rights to the artist who wrote the song to make that karaoke track. This is divided in to the music and sync rights (for the onscreen lyrics). Both should have been paid to the origional artist (or their proxy if the artist has passed on the rights). They needed to negotiate those rights from the origional artists, one at a time (in the US) and sign a contract for the number of songs they wished to produce. In the UK MCPS handles the contracts for all artists in bulk, and acts as an intermediary for all the individual artsists. This means that for karaoke published in the UK, an individual artist can not prevent publishing of a karaoke CD of a song that they wrote. In the US they can, either by asking for unresonable fees or outright banning. But due to trade treaties any song published in the UK can be sold in the US (so long as it conforms to UK laws for copyright).

As for copying for the purpose of format shifting, (not distributing copies) that has generally been settled for music in court. Format shifting does not require approval of the copyright holder, so long as the origional copy is owned (in the US). No there has not been a specific case history for karaoke, but the consensus by many (but not all) legal experts is that karaoke is a subset of music for this purpose and is covered by the precident there.

Sound Choice, Chartbuster, etc do own copyrights to their versions - just like cover bands recording their own versions - they do not own the original song, however they do own the rights to their reproduction. If you think not, you would be wrong.

Just like the myth that a kj/dj/private individual actually owns the music on a disc, you don't - you own the media the disc is produced on and the right to listen to it and even play it in public provided the publishing licenses from the venue are paid.

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

So singing in a public business such as a lounge for the purpose of bringing in more money would fall under commercial use - by your own definitiion!

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

I've always wondered, if SC et are so wrong why hasn't ANYONE fought it? Why hasn't some ATTORNEY take it pro bono to make a name for him or herself (they do it quite often to bring in business). Maybe because SC et al are right?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Sigh, "public performance" is a subset of commercial use. There are a lot of laws that apply to commercial uses, and only a subset of them apply to "public performance". Many of the commercial use laws include aspects that are far beyond what is needed to get into for a KJ, and the parts limited to public performance are much more restricted.

As for "SC" owning copyright, no they do not. Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by the law of a jurisdiction to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work.

SC has negotiated with the owner of the copyright to create a version of the work and has obtained the rights to sell some number of copies of that work. Same as any cover artist.
A cover artist that has adapted and changed a copyrighted song may have some copyright protection (but still has to negotiate with the origional artist), but since Karaoke is an attempt to copy the origional song and not adapt it, Karaoke does not fall into the adaption classification since it is not "origional".

No you own the music on a disk or other format you have legally purchased, you are just limited in the ways that you can USE that music. For Karaoke that "USE" in the US is covered by the ASCAP/BMI for public performance, and the redistribution of the song is covered by copyright law.
If the purchase of a CD did not involve transfer of ownership (under limited circumstances ) of the songs then it interferes with the definition of pirated music. By definition ownership means possession, with the ability to transfer that possesion, something that clearly applies to a song on a CD (if you sell that CD). Of course copying and re-selling copies is a violation of copyright, not ownership. Same thing if that music is used in a film for example which essentialy is a "copies" of the music being re-distributed.

The reason no-one has fought Sound Choice's claims on this matter is that they only put them out there as claims and do not actively defend those claims in court. It is pretty hard to fight a SC claim that "NO DOWNLOADS ARE LEGAL" when they will not sue a KJ who has downloads of Zoom, Sunfly etc. Same with the claims that transfer to a computer is illegal even 1:1, when they will only use that to threaten and find real song pirates, and they have never sued anyone who only format shifted 1:1. YES they can sue them, and SC will PROBABLY (but not certainly depending on the Judge) lose, but they are far better off just being able to use it as a threat.

The only people that have a chance to fight Sound Choice in court are the real song pirates that have no defence because they in fact have pirated music. SC can pick their court fights to only cases where they can win, and as KJs we do not have that option.

OK you have given so much double speak here there is no way for me to sort it out. It is but it isn't, they can but they can't, they do but they don't, they will but they won't! Can you run any tighter of a circle?

Dr Fred, you make no sense at all. Are you trying to say that any host that "ignore" the claim have no worries to see the inside of a court room and continue on as usual? I think not. That would make the whole exercise useless. The reason it hasn't gone into a court room is that the offenders have no defence. It seems unlikely that not one of the hundreds that have been challenged haven't taken up on the challenge.

Also this "since it hasn't been challenged in court it's not valid or a law" is preposterous. Give your head a shake. It's like it's only illegal if you get caught.

Remember criminal and civil law are two different animals. OJ got away in Criminal Court but got nailed in Civil Court.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Being legal or illegal has nothing to do with being caught. It has to do with similar circumstances being found illegal in the past. Of course there is going to be debate on if a circumstance similar enough to a past case.

Something is not illegal because one interested party (for example SC) says so, because that interpretation suits their interests. Something is illegal only when it has been found illegal in a similar court case (or clearly written specific law).

I am just saying that Sound Choice has a very weak case with regards to the claim that format shifting of 1:1 is similar to past case or law where something has been found illegal.

The people that have been convicted in court were convicted of copyright violation by owning things they had obtained from sources that did not have rights to sell/distribute the songs NOT format shifting.

Most of the lawsuits against pirate KJs have included many charges including format shifting, but they have usually either settled or only been convicted of other charges but not format shifting.

No doubt one is "legally" safer by only doing what SC or other manus say is legal, but that puts constraints on the KJ beyond what is in fact legal. Yes KJs can run only disk based systems, and not use copied disks, originals only. Eventually disks scratch and wear out if regularly used even when treated well, and by that time many have gone out of print. It is obvious for most of us that such a disk based system is not the most efficient way to run a karaoke show.

Technology has changed and now it is far more efficient to run a karaoke show off of a hard drive. The law and court recognizes this and is allowing format shifting (1:1) to accomidate improved technology. It is not SC or Chartbuster allowing that it is the law and the courts.

Same thing with digital downloads, some companies have decided to allow downloads, others have not. Since SC has not that does not mean that other companies downloads (SF, ZOOM SBI) from authorized sites are not legal for use in public performance.

Of course it is sometimes hard to determine if a download site is authorized or not by the manu. It may be "SAFER" to not download from any site, but that does not mean that no legal download sites exist.

One may not avoid the worries about ever seeing the inside of a court room by ignoring (some of) Sound Choices interpretations of the law, but by actually becoming informed on the matter and looking at past histories, one has very slim chance of ever having an unfavorable ruling in a court case.

[quote="Dr Fred @ Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:26 pm"]Being legal or illegal has nothing to do with being caught. It has to do with similar circumstances being found illegal in the past. Of course there is going to be debate on if a circumstance similar enough to a past case.<<<<<<<<<Snipped>>>>>>>>/quote]


GREAT POST DR FRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL, ok!

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

IT all boils down to this: If you have bought all your music legally then you should not have anything to worry about SC Investigators since you can prove you have the originals for it.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.