Karaoke Forums

Unless everyone who operates from a computer is illegal, then operating from a computer in itself is not illegal and not grounds enough to imply that someone is illegal.

And the "media shift" thing -- so far undetermined, so as of yet not strictly illegal.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I don't know how you figure that copying a trademark is not a violation when there are already laws in place which prohibit doing so without permission from the trademark holder.

That is the basis for the lawsuits that are being filed and are in front of the courts now.

I know that many are "waiting to see" what the courts are going to do, but if they strictly follow the laws as written then anyone who has copied CDGs to the computer or anything else is already guilty without the expressed permission of the trademark owner.

Now I grant that those who are not using any product that is being "enforced" is another situation, but once informed a venue owner can make the decision to keep or get rid of a host who can not show at least one document showing he has permission to "shift a product".

That is just the chance that the KJ will have to take.

I have to side with Chip on this point. I’m not trying to be facetious here, but the way that letter is worded, I too am reading it the same way Chip is.








Here are my questions and concerns regarding this:

What would be the criteria for knowing?
Now one possible response to this would be that a KJ must have one of those “Certificates of Authenticity” issued by Sound Choice or ChartBuster (which is really based on a computer operated KJ that is operating on a 1:1 ratio).

What about the other manufacturers who are still in business? Where are the “Certificates of Authenticity” from them?

How many “Certificates of Authenticity” is a KJ supposed to have/hold?

And what about all those manufacturers (REGARDLESS of whether or not they produced Karaoke tracks legally) that are no longer in business (All Hits, Ameri-Sing, Back Stage, Dangerous, DK, Doctor Music, JVC, Karaoke Classics, Lost Classics, Monster Hits, Music Maestro, Nikodo, NuTech, Performance Tracks, Pioneer, Sound Images, Standing Ovation, etc…). Are we (the KJs) supposed to just get rid of all these songs from these libraries (which we purchased from legitimate storefronts (actual Brick and Mortar Stores or their respective Internet Sites such as Karaoke Warehouse, Karaoke.Com, ACE Karaoke, TSC Karaoke, etc…) in good faith)?

And what about those of us that are still Disc Based? The above mentioned is all based on the KJ being Computer Based? For a Disc Based KJ, there is no 1:1… There is ONLY 1.

One thing that’s been stated/argued in past topic threads (regarding Disc Based KJs), is that those KJs have nothing to worry about, because they have done nothing wrong. The problem I see (that has been stated in other topic threads), is that Sound Choice and ChartBuster have been blitzing as many Venues as they can with letters stating that unless they hire a KJ who is Legal, they will be subject to legal proceedings against them as well. Then, they have further stated that you can check their websites (Sound Choice and CharBuster) for a list of those KJs who are Legal (which consists of those KJs who have gone through one of those Audit processes)… And that’s just those who are Computer based. Well, I am Disc Based.

Now, before one of you jumps in with, “A Disc Based KJ can get a ‘Certificate of Authenticity’ too. Just PAY for an Audit.”... go back to my questions above…. How many Audits do I need to get done, and from whom? I only do 12 shows a year at $150 for 3 hours. Let’s see…. $199 to ChartBuster… $125 to Sound Choice…. That’s already 2 of my 12 shows and a fraction of a 3rd show (not to mention my added expenses of gas and costs for wear and tear on my Vehicle)…. What about all the other brands that SC and CB don’t care about? How much more am I expected to spend for those “C.O.A.’s”???

Just like having a license to operate your business, you just show them the license, simple right?

Right because a criminal is going freely admit to wrongdoing.

Chip, there is not much difference in offences between the US and Canada, murder is murder, theft is theft. The administration and penalities may be different but LEO is LEO and procedures are very similar, but again nice try. A bar in both places are responsible for the activities in their establishments.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

"May be" and "IS" are two very different animals.

That is an infantile argument timberlea. We're not talking about murder. We're talking about the letter posted on page 1. Stealing a car is theft and CRIMINAL , using a computer for karaoke -even though you might think of it as "theft" it is intellectual property and is a CIVIL ACTION.

Canada is Canada and the U.S. is the U.S. so I don't care how "similar" you see them, they ARE different and you'll just have to deal with the fact that you don't know all the U.S. laws and you can't simply apply what you perceive as Canadian law and label it "similiar."

And I will ask you again to please knock it off with "nice try" crap. You have yet to explain what "it" is and that kind of conduct is simply abusive and baiting.

We have to face the fact, that with all the cutbacks in state and local governments, only the most serious types of crimes will have priority. As important as karaoke piracy is to hosts at this forum, I don't think the vast majority of people are to concerned with it. They are more worried about their jobs and families, as entertainers it should be our jobs, to get the public's mind off their troubles, then we will be doing something worthwhile. That is why the crime of piracy has a low priority with the FBI, the chief enforcement arm of the Federal Government, concerned with copyright infringement. It is just not important enough with everything else happening. That is why the manus have had to go after the pirates themselves.

Copyright is both civil and criminal Chip, but nice try.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Whatever.... And you got your U.S. law degree where in Canada?

And I will ask you YET AGAIN to please knock it off with "nice try" bait. That kind of conduct is simply abusive and baiting.

Beautifully stated, Cueball. I too agree that the letter reads that the Permitee is the venue-run show ONLY.

I would like to add that if said SC letters were sent to venues in my area, and it cost me work because of mis-interpretation in regard to my being disc-based, and not a part of SC's sham of a list, that I would consider myself a Damaged Party, and would act accordingly.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

SC wouldn't be sending the letters. The government agency would.

The list I would give the government agency such as the local gaming commission or A.B.C. would come from every advertised karaoke show from newspapers, websites, & any other publications that list karaoke schedules.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

From the US Copyright Act

§ 506. Criminal offenses6
(a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

(2) Evidence. — For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

(3) Definition. — In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means —

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution —

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture —

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

(b)(b) Forfeiture, Destruction, and Restitution.—Forfeiture, destruction, and restitution relating to this section shall be subject to section 2323 of title 18, to the extent provided in that section, in addition to any other similar remedies provided by law.

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a).

§ 507. Limitations on actions7
(a) Criminal Proceedings. — Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.

(b) Civil Actions. — No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

Again Chip, nice try.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Copy and paste works I see, but you apparently failed to actually read it.

But you forget this little part:

A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

the reproduction in and of itself may not be the ONLY evidence, but produced with other evidence, would be within a criminal activity.

Again nice try.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

There goes Timberlea again trying to discredit Chip....

Again, nice try.

Birdofsong

_________________
Birdofsong

And cows may fly.... in Canada only.

Could that mean a pirate who downloaded his library five years ago and has been openly using it for more than three years is "in the clear" from lawsuits?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

The point is... a venue can have its liquor license pulled for ANY activity deemed inappropriate or in fact illegal by the agency that issued the license.

This includes activity that occurs without the direct knowledge of staff.

The onus is not on the permittee specifically, but on the premises where the permittee engages in the sale of liquor.

How can a venue who hires outside services be sure they are hiring a legit service?
They have to be educated.

Maybe that something that the members of KS could hash out. A sort of "charter" from the KJ's to the venues giving them the parameters within which to make an informed decision about who they hire.

I am not suggesting that education should include the threat of a lawsuit from the manufactuers. I am suggesting that we should be able to come up with a set of standards on our own that would allow the client to discern whether the karaoke service presents a risk or not if hired.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

Only if they haven't used the tracks at all in 3 years... the statute of limitations starts the clock ticking after the last claim or cause of action occured.

If you pirated the track 10 years ago, but played it at a show yesterday, the clock restarted yesterday.

_________________
Never the same show twice!