Karaoke Forums

Exactly my point with regard to my applied copyright! Just because I apply restrictions to my post does not mean that they can be enforced. I still attempted to apply them and some may be naive enough to abide by it. In the same light, those Copyright laws allow for making copies and changing formats. SC can argue that they've applied a restriction, and they can possibly get that restriction upheld if someone is stupid enough to represent themselves or has horrible council. And SC has not been steadily enforcing the technical infringement policy in court. They would much prefer to get that out of the courts as quickly as possible. I actually think that is commendable so I am not knocking them for that. But I would bet that, when really challenged, their "technical infringement" policy would be ruled against in most cases. The point is, this is an area that is so untested it is impossible to say how a supreme ruling would go. To date, the only thing close has been ruled AGAINST their policy. So making statements as you have as fact WILL continue to be challenged. And we have to go through this all over again...

It was challenged in Florida and the judge sided with SC in that the warning on the discs was sufficient to prohibit copying without permission. I posted the wording further up on the thread--or on one of them, anyway.

Also, Title 107 of the copyright law spells out Fair Use and it does not cover commercial except for very limited, specific circumstances. A person can copy a movie to watch at home but you couldn't transfer a DVD to computer and then charge money for people in a public place to watch it.

This discussion has been going in circle for years on here. First people say there is no law or case then you show them the law or case and it really doesn't count, it is just one judge, one state, not federal, etc. Show more proof and the argument shifts to but everyone is doing it and what are the odds of getting caught? Then we start over again.

I don't think the laws have caught up with technology or the more open global market so the lawsuits to further define the laws are stepping up in every area of trademark and copyright law. Wishful thinking isn't law, no matter how much more logical it may seem.

Um, if media shifting without permission were actually the issue, it wouldn'tt go away as SC claims it does just because the kj is "1:1" would it?
Especially since SC has no authority to grant permission to media shift in the first place....

The second part of your statement would make perfect sense....if we lived in, say, Russia, Nigeria, Iran, or other countries who's citizens expext a different standard than we do here. Those of us living here have a tendency to believe that people getting hosed is wrong, and those who do the hosing as unethical. Well, most of us anyway....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

*sigh* Here we go again.



Let's break this down.

1) Media-shifting involves creating a new item (usually a computer hard drive) that contains a karaoke accompaniment track, using an original disc as a template. The new item was made by the host (or someone else up the line, but not SC). The new item is marked with the Sound Choice trademarks and trade dress.

2) Because Sound Choice did not make the new item and did not give permission to put its trademarks and trade dress on/inside the item, it is a false designation of origin and a trademark infringement.

3) If the host uses these new items to put on commercial karaoke shows, he is using Sound Choice's trademarks and trade dress in commerce, without permission.

Media-shifting without permission is most definitely an issue for us. We cannot tolerate having others create products with the Sound Choice trademarks and trade dress on them without SC's permission.

Now, I thought this would have been self-explanatory, but apparently not. The key words there are "without permission." If the host is actually 1:1, SC has a process by which permission can be gained. If the host complies with the process, SC grants that permission, which applies only to the trademarks and to any copyrighted content that SC happens to own--things that are indisputably in SC's sole control.

Once permission has been granted, it is no longer "media-shifting without permission" and thus no longer problematic.



You have no basis to make this statement.

SC's permission is necessary but may not be sufficient, something that is made absolutely clear to KJs who media-shift. The fact that it is not sufficient by itself does not mean it's unnecessary.

Here's an example that shows what I'm talking about: I would like to add a room onto my house. In order to do so, I have to obtain a building permit from the county and a fire inspection certificate from the city. Does the fact that the fire marshal can't issue my building permit mean that he has no authority to issue (or deny) a fire inspection certificate? Of course not. Can the fire marshal issue me a fire inspection certificate even if I didn't pull a building permit? Of course he can. They are different sources of authority, and it's up to each of them individually to enforce what is in their domain.

By the way, I've explained this at least two previous times in conversations with you. I don't know how to make it any more clear. This is what I'm talking about when I refer to your amnesia.

Yet no other karaoke manufacturer has a problem with it. Why is that do you think?

That's not precisely true.

But I don't represent the other manufacturers, and I've never asked them why they choose not to pursue the issue, nor do I care. But, since you asked: Perhaps the attorneys they consult don't understand the Trademark Act. Perhaps they can't find attorneys who will handle the cases for them in an financially feasible manner. Perhaps they are concerned that pursuing these cases will invite unwanted scrutiny of their licensing practices. Perhaps their production costs are low enough that they can tolerate piracy more easily. Or maybe it's something else.

The fact--if you can call it that--that others choose not to enforce their trademarks does not mean that SC is prohibited from doing so.

Excuse me. SC cannot grant SUFFICIENT permission to allow a KJ to media shift without any fear of legal reprisal. Sound better? Worthless except to SC. They have no say over the property of any other of the myriad of brands, or any of thepublishers or owners.
Also, their case regarding the shifting of even their own product seems to be very weak in the courts....

That being done, with all of the distractive verbage used to take attention away from my question, you left it unanswered. If media shifting is SC's true issue, why is this alleged infringement ignored if the KJ is "1:1" ? Even if the KJ has all matching discs, the infringement occurred. Why is it ignored?

No amnesia, I know why because you have already admitted / explained it, but it bears posting again, because it circles right back to.......Fishing expedition.

Leopard, bad lawyer or idiot judge. Nothing on the disc labels expressly forbids making a duplicate of a disc. Read it again. It says NO UNAUTHORIZED copies- big difference. Single site backups are authorized with or without producer permission. This was decided during the software wars of the 90s. It isn't authorized for multi-site or distributive purposes.

In other words, some copies are authorized while others aren't, but the labels don't specify, probably in hopes of generating more sales.

Tha being said, I should note that the 90s decision were in regard to disc-disc duplicates.

Media shifted backups may or may not be included. It's never been fully tested, and no solid procedure has been set in stone. Hence, "Gray Area".

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Back ups were ruled OKAY by the courts for PRIVATE use ONLY.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

One case in FL has some ruling verbiage that states the warning on the disc is sufficient? One case? Someone please correct me if I am wrong but that case proved to not be 1:1 which is what we are talking about here. In that case, if I remember correctly, the damages in the ruling equaled the number of discs that were missing. So while you may have some verbiage, I have the fact that the damages ruling did not include anything at all with regard to the shifted media that was 1:1. Plus, the damage proved to be equal to the retail value of the missing media. SC actually got a boom there as they were awarded full retail and not the wholesale value which they would have received otherwise. So it still has never been proved that 1:1 media shifting harms SC unless there are other cases we can discuss or I am off on the facts of that case. Still, One case???

Those on the other side could point to a single judge in California that called the SC cases IP trolling. So, by your logic, if one case makes a precedent, then the SC cases are IP trolling?

I have never said that there is not law. But now that you mention it, there is zero law specific to Karaoke at all. All the cases follow IP laws that were probably meant for other things, just like people throw all kinds of things at the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The closest thing I can think of are DJs who have copied their discs to drives. Has anyone ever gone after a DJ for shifted music? If not, the copyright part is proved by default because the precedent is there is no precedent. It is inherently OK due to commonly used industry practices. As for the Trademark thing, based on SC's new customer focus they may have just opened up a brand new can of worms that could seriously cause issues with their current case format. Maybe they have thought about it, maybe not.

Logic would indicate that 1:1 (which means shifted:original) media was excluded from damages. The discs that were missing were, in fact, the basis for awarding damages. This would also indicate that the court considered the printed warning/restriction was sufficient to support the plaintiff's claim.

With all due respect, the damage was not "proved to be equal", it was considered by that judge to be appropriate compensation. Several other courts have awarded substantially greater amounts as compensation for damages.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

I certainly agree that other cases have had awards for substantially greater amounts. It was not my intent to mislead anyone into thinking this was the "standard". If I did, I apologize and please note the correction. This was the one and only case presented in support of SC's 1:1 media shift policy so that is why I focused on this case. It's my opinion that the amount of the award was not reflective of the actual damages. That means I feel SC should have had a higher award. I think the further you get away from 1:1, the more the damages and the higher the award should be. If I remember correctly we were talking about a higher percentage than simply misplacing a few discs. (10%-30% missing was it?)

So for me, that shows an error in judgment with the award, and it also shows a mis-alignment between what was said in the ruling and the actions of the ruling.

Chartbuster had a problem with it! (See PR LLC)

PR LLC has an ongoing problem with it!

DT has an ongoing problem with it!

AllStar has an ongoing problem with it according to Rick V! (We spoke in person at the 2012 ADJA show in Las Vegas and at the 2013 Summit about that)!

Is that enough?

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

I think Rick meant that no one else was really active in pursuing it the way SC does.

CB really wasn't - apparently for good reason.

I know that I haven't seen any activity from All Star, and if current rumors are correct, we probably never will.

While PR seems to have sent out some spotters, the courts haven'exactly been inundated with suits.

Hence, SC being the only one to truly care.

We were told from the beginning by SC folks how all of the mfrs. were going to jump on the bandwagon. Didn't happen.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

did, but no longer a player


you mean Chartbuster, they have not filed one suit for media shifting, nor do they offer audits.


they do not offer hard media so how can they have an issue with media shifting?


AS has no issue with media shifting, ask Athena.


so we are back to what rick said to begin with.

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

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

Oops, just caught this. You might wish to double-check this statement.

The software wars that ended up allowing backups were not started because of what anyone did at home. It was about what professional corporations and companies were doing. The result was that said companies could make single site copies for PROFESSIONAL use.

I have no idea what the laws are in Canada, Timberlea.

However, even if you were correct "ok for home use " would indicate the difference between No Copies and No Unauthorized Copies. Since what is or is not authorized is never specified on that label, the phrase is meaningless as a warning or or an expression of copyright.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

As for CB, "settlements " such as SC intimidates do not equate to court cases.

We agree on All Star.

Still awaiting any quantity of suits or successes from PR.

Do not know of what "others " you speak. Not Pocket. Not SyberSound. Not Stellar. Who else?

Again, the alleged bandwagon jumping hasn't happened, at least with ACTIVE PRODUCERS. They have no interest in crappng all over their labels as SC has. DT, if they decided to jump in, would have to attempt to sue for piracy rather than media shifting. Good luck with that without any " 1:1" to work with, and a history of providing non- track specific receipts. Also, piracy is theft- a criminal charge. Can't make much off of that, which is why SC doesn't target actual pirates.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Ah heem JoeC you may wish to search the legal sites for Stellar cases.....Just sayin'

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

Stellar suits against KJs for media shifting? Found none, Athena. Can you help out with a link?

PS: I have the same problems with this tablet. Hence, all the edits.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

We all know that the real culprit is not the 1:1 shifter but the guy that makes the claim to be 1:1 but in reality might have one original or even none but is hiding behind the "I have the constitutional right to media shift". Truly, if legal media shifting was the problem, then all the manus would still be around and doing fine, just fine. Media-shifting is just a starting point for the manus to weed out the legal ones. Some that claim they just shifted are in reality pirates and you and I know that.

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!