Karaoke Forums

The point you often make, that digitally delivered product is somehow not "Factory Original" and lacks "Quality Control" is purely one of your own creation. If this were the case, than Adobe, Symantec or any other software company that delivers product digitally and without hard media would have no liability. This simply isn't true.

WOW!That's terrific! If what you say is true, than you don't believe Sound Choice has a case either, because tracks ripped to PC would also have to be considered factory originals- hence, no trade mark infringement would be possible. Interesting....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

no quite......
SC got a license to make 1000 copies of a track, i pay them, they send me the disc containing that track.

DT got a license to make 1000 copies of a track, i pay them, they send me the file containing that track.

both factory original, they just have licenses for different delivery methods.
the disc or the download, both delivery methods, but the copy of the disc is a backup copy, not the factory original.

and just to test the other theory of data loss i uploaded 40 files to my cloud server from my home comp, downloaded to my show comp wifi through my 3g phone as a hotspot to give worst case scenario..............all 40 checksums came up perfect. not one bit out of place.

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

Also when you download you get for the sake of argument one disc worth of music, the same as getting the disc. You are no more allowed to put the downloaded music on disc than you are to shift your disc on computer, without authorization or even to transfer the downloaded music to another harddrive as a backup for commercial purposes. It all comes down to authorization to make a copy (whether there is a charge for it or not).

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

did Timberlea and I just agree??????

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

Oooooo, did you just puke into your mouth a little bit??

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Are you intentionally getting this wrong?

First, to clear up a major misconception on your part: Liability for copyright infringement reaches EVERY PARTY involved in the infringement. Digital delivery does not relieve the manufacturer of any liability for copyright infringement, even if it is the end user who is directing that the copy be made. It's still distribution by the manufacturer.

Second, your statement above about "factory originals" is a non sequitur. Tracks ripped to a PC from a CD--an act in which the manufacturer has no role--would not be considered to have originated with the manufacturer for that reason (lack of role).

I know you're trying really hard to undermine our position, but it's just not going to work because you lack a fundamental understanding of the principles at issue here.

That's quite a stretch. A legally purchased, digitally delivered product does not hold the same status as someone ripping a disc, even though the end result may be the same.

Just as I cannot make an exact replica of some artwork and claim it is "factory original" even though it may be virtually identical.

Awww... Go on now. I'll bet you could draw a really good Mona Lisa.

We disagree. Even were we to assume perfect transmission media.

A download is based on data transmitted from an original source, but the site retains that source, just as you retain an original picture taken on your phone then sent to a friend. The factory retains the original, while you CREATE a file from the download.

Not that it matters, but I would add that even with perfect transmission, downloaders are generally amateurs, and everything from bit rates to home computer equipment varies wildly, with no QC oversight from the factory. Again, the quality of the self-created file is not a determination of it's originality- a perfect duplicate or not....

Please keep in mind that I don't actually have any reason to care if they are copies or originals, as I am OMD based. No bias.

As a matter of fact, I might prefer that they WERE original, simply because of what it would do to SC's actions. Unfortunately, it's not the case.

I would also repeat that as far as I know, the publishers/owners have yet to cause a KJ any problems due to downloads. I only emphasize that they CAN, on good grounds, and only bring it up to remind KJs that they are liable and open to possible legal action in the event that they do get involved.

The sites are selling a product. THEY are not the ones to ask. If one were to ask LImewire if they were always on the up and up, what do you think they would tell you?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

FIRST, Nope, not ALL responsibility, but most remains with the KJ who created the file, assuming that the site actually has the permissions required to offer the download ( I don't assume that in general, BTW) Please keep in mind that this isn't an SC based statement , but meant in regard to all download sites.

I have no bias in this situation, being OMD based, but don't claim to be a lawyer,though I am well advised for the purpose of running my business. You ( or I should say your statements) are biased , as SC may get involved with downloading in the future. Jim, I mean you no disrespect, but you are doing your job as a professional. I would advise KJs to depend more heavily on outside sources ( in other words, not just you OR me, but to do more research from independent [non-mfr.]. sources that THEY trust on their own) for information on this subject.

SECOND, Factory originality defines the physical source of a product, and is not dependent on special permissions or statements of a mfr. They either created, produced, and sold the ACTUAL PRODUCT that the KJ is using or they did not.

If you think that a download is a factory original product, than logic dictates that you think that a track ripped directly from a factory original disc is original product too. Therefore, the logo being displayed would be from a factory original track, and thend could not be called a "counterfeit" ( which technically it wouldn't be anyway.)

Of course, if the rips were made from factory original discs, the KJ probably purchased them anyway.

Your case depends on SC's "permissions" to determine whether a track is original or not, instead of the source, which is illogical at best, and easily knocked out by a decent attorney.

Besides, it's all moot- downloads aren't factory originals. Just because someone pays for permission to access and download files does not change the state of the product itself. It merely means that the site owners won't pursue the buyer. Kind of like SC claiming a "counterfeit" state of a product, then having that state suddenly change to factory original after monies are exchanged and and conditions met. It's still the same product coming from the same source.


THIRD, I'm pretty sure that I'm not needed for that ... I am just sharing a viewpoint that differs from SC's, and explaining it. Some agree with it some don't. Besides, it would seem that - given the majority attitude here in regard to SC's actions, they've pretty much undermined themselves. I sure as hell didn't do it.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Here we are actually in perfect agreement, Bazza

I DON'T think they are factory originals. I was only making the point that it can't be both ways. Downloads and rips are either copies of originals, or they are not. It can't be either/or. No difference between the two in real life.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Limewire/Napster & the likes was never selling a product - they were peer to peer file sharing - no comparison.

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

which is proven to be a fact.........



incorrect, the factory sends me the same file that they send to the presser to have discs made. they have a license to make x number of copies of said file in download form. if youe scenario were the case then most new music would be only one factory original and millions of illegal copies being used by DJ's, Radio stations and the like.



where are you getting all this from?



ehhhhh............



it is acording to every publisher and manufacturer in the world besides SC and even their attorney says you are wrong



they have not and can not, they sell downloads, they can not sell you something and then turn around and say "oh, thats illegal to have"



file sharing and sites like SAT who are selling CB material ar totally different.
file sharing pays nobody at all while sites like SAT, Tricerasoft (who just picked up 2 more manus) and karaokecloud pay the original rights holders who also SELL THEIR MATERIAL ON DOWNLODS TO DJ'S ALL OVER THE WORLD EVERY DAY.
where are you getting this information from?

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

It is perfect, or it doesnt complete.



Your semantic exercise doesnt change the fact that the files are identical and due to licensing and the fact you purchased it it IS legally considered an identical factory original.



I'm having Deja Vu as we have had this silly argument at least half a dozen times. The "Quality Control" you so love to talk about is built into the transfer protocol and has NOTHING to do with the skills of the end user. Do you honestly believe that every person who purchased & downloaded "Gangnam Style" on iTunes has a completely different copy quality based on their skills and hardware?!

There is no such things as downloads "varying wildly" according to the downloaders skill. The file is transferred, perfectly and identical to the original thanks to the built in error correction of the transfer protocol. The comment about varying "bit rates" in a downloaded file are simply comical.

You are attempting to talk about things with authority that you simply don't understand.

Apologies for quoting myself, but the ONLY point that I am trying to make in THIS thread is:

"... downloads aren't factory originals. Just because someone pays for permission to access and download files does not change the state of the product itself. It merely means that the site owners won't pursue the buyer. Kind of like SC claiming a "counterfeit" state of a product, then having that state suddenly change to factory original after monies are exchanged and and conditions met. It's still the same product coming from the same source."

Permissions have absolutely NOTHING to do with the FACTUAL originality of a product. No one can can change the actual state of originality simply because of what they say or claim.

If you feel that downloads are original factory product, then you MUST feel that SC has no case. If you feel that downloads are NOT factory original product, then you may feel that SC does have a case, but not neccesarily.

Downloads and rips are either BOTH original factory product, or both NOT original factory product.. In real life, they are equal. Again, I'm talking about real life, not legalese-speak.

Let's say I own a winery. You, a liquor store owner, take a tour. You watch your wine being bottled, having had it's production explained to you by me. You take a case of that wine back to your store after finishing your tour.

Now I show up at your store and tell you that the wine you are selling is not factory original because I didn't give you permission to sell it. Is it still factory original, even though I said that it wasn't? You bet it is.

Permissions have nothing to do with the state of product originality.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

??????
everything you are stating is made up entirely by you.
the entire music industry is selling copies and not factory authorized originals?

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

No Joe, in the world of IP permission and licencing is everything. It matters not one whit whether it be a download or a shift. As I said before when you pay for a legal download, you get one copy just as if you buy a disc you get one copy. Both are copies of the master (as was vinyl and tapes). In all cases you cannot make a copy or shift for professional use, unless you have permission (paid or not). I don't know why you're having difficulty grasping it.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Karaoke version gives no other choice than downloads. I actually agree with Timberlea that whether it's a download or a disc they are both copies of an original master. The only factory original is the master copy.

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

This is nothing more than a word game.

A CD is just a copy of the file used to create it. Since there are multiple CD presses, there are multiple copies of that file. In turn the files used to create the CD are copies of the original master. The Original master is just a copy of the actual performance.

Using "Joe Logic ©", the only way to have a true ORIGINAL version would be to have the musicians actually playing the song at your venue.