Karaoke Forums

Tricersoft,

I have some really simple (and probably simple mined) questions.

Who are the manufacturers of the karaoke download songs that you do sell?

How much to purchase downloads of say 5,000 songs (bulk price)?

Whart format are they in and at what bitrate?

It is against the rules to make sales over the forum, please contact us via our own website for details on pricing and listings - they are all in the open for everyone to see, we promote our manufacturers and proud distributors of their products.

For this purpose, it would be answering a direct question for the thread and remain on topic. You don't have to mention pricing, but the manus you supply are fine.

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

I would prefer you simply see it on the website along with other important details (buykaraoke.ca, karaokedownloads.ca, or tricerasoft.com/songs) - but if it is important for you to see a list on the forum then refer below (alphabetical);

Kantatu
Karaoke Planete
Music Factory
SBI/Abraxa
Sundown Karaoke
Sunfly
Zoom

We have two systems, credit system (new) and a-la-carte system (old). Credit System offers a new tracking for your orders, more rewards with volume discounts, and easier claiming system (need to open a simple tracking account). A-la-carte system is there for those familiar with the old "select, purchase, and pay". Details vary, refer to each and choose your favorite. In either system, always keep your receipts, please use valid emails (we do not giveaway your information nor do we misuse it - the email is for you alone to get receipts).

I am still worried this brakes the rules, therefore if so, I apologize Peter in advance and please just remove this response.

Thank you Tricersoft!

Don't worry It's not a direct advertisement per se.

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

Why is mp3gmusic.com dumping karaoke downloads in the USA? Arn't they a tricerasoft, karaoke Channel, pcdj, erg affilate?

_________________
[img]<img%20src="http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j288/miller2348/myspace/images/Funny_Pics/images/21.gif"[/img]

CHECK YOUR ATTITUDE AT THE DOOR, STICK AROUND YOU JUST MIGHT HAVE SOME FUN

Possibly because they can't be used legally in the USA. (Just my opinion)

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

They are simply an affiliate of each of these services. You sign up for an affiliate and you make a commission or "finders fee" for sold songs. They are just embeded web pages from each of the services. This is similar to adding banner ads on your webpage and a good source of income "if" you have the traffic. They are not distributors of any of these services, but they are doing a good job of driving traffic to each of the services. I would prefer a focused effort but each to their own.

I am hoping this happens soon.

I posted: Back to the original question....

If a Sound Choice song is requested that is not in one's library, one could search Ebay for the disc, and if it is available, buy and pay for it. One then (according to contract law) actually owns the disc even though it is not yet in one's possession. One could then download said song from the newsgroups or another source and play it immediately. In the rare instance that one did not receive said disc within a reasonable time, one would either buy it from another source, or if unavailable, delete it.

Dr. Fred Posted:



Could you point me to that authority? I seem to have found the opposite.

In In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, the court noted a hypothetical list of activities, which would not be considered infringement, although they fall within the literal definition of the copyright statute. Of particular interest, the court suggested:

"Someone might own a popular-music CD that he was particularly fond of, but he had not downloaded it into his computer and now he finds himself out of town but with his laptop and he wants to listen to the CD, so he uses Aimster’s service to download a copy. This might be a fair use rather than a copyright infringement, by analogy to the time-shifting approved as fair use in the Sony case."

I'm not an IP attorney and this is not legal advice. Take it for what it's worth...

You have made an excellent point here! I guess it might depend on what the the court meant with the statement "This might be a fair use rather than a copyright infringement" I know I am not the smartest guy in the world and wouldn't ever pass myself off as having any great understanding of the law but exactly what do the courts consider fair use?

http://www.imaginelaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1196173.html

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... sydbeckman

http://204.11.208.101/ip/v14-summer/Oppenheimer.pdf




Each of the above are an individual person's opinion of the law. (Not law).

OK having read all three of these articles the only one that actually addresses what we do, how we use a product and sites actual court cases and rulings in the federal court system is this one:

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... sydbeckman

And it pretty much mirrors and confirms what the actual law states in terms of fair use. In other words as KJs and DJs making money from the activity we are all in violation of the law and subject to lawsuits without the expressed permission of the copyright holders.

I download from the Tricerasoft site all the time. If you buy the largest "Gift Pack" the per cut price becomes very reasonable. I use them for the odd request. Seems that whenever someone asks for a specific song they are the ones that have it "ala carte".

I save all my receipts, and feel confident I will have no issues.

We will agree to disagree. I believe the first one is directly relevant as well and the third has some good arguments.

I agree that all three base some good arguments but number 1 is are simply basing a lot of speculations on the fact that the courts have never made a ruling on the specifics of karaoke in general. They are also making a statement that all four points of "fair use" must be violated to constitute a copyright violation which flies directly in the face of what the courts said in the cases they are naming. And the person who wrote it is also a practicing attorney trying to drum up a little work.

Whoever posted the "space shifting" in number three did it by taking it out of the article posted in number two, and it should be noted that computer use was actually left out of the Home Recording Act and transfering music files to a computer without permission even under the HR Act is still copyright infringement.

However, since the third is really out of context it still brings us back to the position paper from whence it came the article number 2 that you posted, which is all in fact based strictly upon court rulings on the various subjects. And all point to private "home" users or educational/parody productions when refering to fair use and not those that involve commercial gain!

I think this will clarify it a little better,

Digital Audio Recording Device Defined
The AHRA's statutory definitions of “digital audio recording device” and “digital audio recording media” are crucial to understanding the implications of the Act. The distinction between covered and non-covered devices or media dictates whether or not royalties are paid and whether the SCMS copy control technologies are included. The language of the act protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings regardless if the copy control technology is present or the royalty has been paid.

The statutory definition, codified at states:

A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use.[8]

The definition of “digital audio recording medium” is similar:

A “digital audio recording medium” is any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.[9]

In each case, the principal distinction between what is and is not covered by the AHRA is determined by whether or not the device is marketed or designed (or in the case of media, commonly used by consumers) to make audio recordings, not the device's capabilities. A CD-R recorder included as part of a personal computer would not be a digital audio recording device under the Act, since the personal computer was not marketed primarily for making copies of music. The same recorder, sold as a peripheral and marketed for the express purpose of making digital audio recordings, would fall under the Act's definition of a recording device.
Exceptions
The AHRA's definition of "digital audio recording device" includes explicit exceptions for devices that are used primarily to record non-musical sounds (such as dictation devices and answering machines) and for “professional equipment.” [10] The definition of professional equipment was to have been set by the Department of Commerce, though these regulations have never been issued. “Professional” minidisc recorders without SCMS cost thousands of dollars.

The AHRA's definition of "digital audio recording media" explicitly excludes pre-recorded but recordable media, and storage media used primarily to store information other than musical works.[11]

This exception was crucial in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 29 F. Supp. 2d 624 (C.D. Cal. 1998), the only case in which the AHRA's provisions have been examined by the federal courts. The RIAA filed suit to enjoin the manufacture and distribution of the Rio PMP300, one of the first portable MP3 players and the forerunner to the iPod, because it did not include the SCMS copy protection required by the act, and Diamond did not intend to pay royalties. The 9th Circuit, affirming an earlier District Court ruling in favor Diamond Multimedia, ruled that the “digital music recording” for the purposes of the act was not intended to include songs fixed on computer hard drives. The court also held that the Rio was not a digital audio recording device for the purposes of the AHRA, because 1) the Rio reproduced files from computer hard drives, which were specifically exempted from the SCMS and Royalty payments under the act, 2) could not directly record from the radio or other transmissions.

However, that has since been covered in the "Digital Recording Act" as to what is and is not a violation of copyright law, and it still comes back to the "Fair Use" interpetations!

And it all still comes down to either owning the origional media or not, regardless to protect oneself from potential lawsuits it all boils down to getting permission from the copyright/trademark owners to transfer the music to computer for commercial venture, not that difficult of a concept!

You spoke of the "fair use" factors and assume a KJ's use of 1-1 media shifted files in a commercial environment would not meet fair use. You state a KJ would need to get permission to make the 1-1 shift. That may be. The argument that no permission is necessary follows.

The four factors identified by Congress as especially relevant in determining whether the use was fair are: (1) the purpose and character of the use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (4) the effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 560-561 (U.S. 1985)

I believe factors one and four are most important here.

The fact that a publication was commercial as opposed to nonprofit is a separate factor that tends to weigh against a finding of fair use. "[Every] commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright." Id. Quoting Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 451.

The crux of the profit/nonprofit distinction is not whether the sole motive of the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price. Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 562 (U.S. 1985); See also Roy Export Co. Establishment v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 503 F.Supp., at 1144; 3 Nimmer § 13.05[A][1], at 13-71, n. 25.3;

A 1-1 KJ paid the customary price for the copyrighted material.

Effect on the Market. Finally, the Act focuses on "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." This last factor is undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use. n9 See 3 Nimmer § 13.05[A], [**2234] at 13-76, and cases cited therein. HN24"Fair use, when properly applied, is limited to copying by others which does not materially impair the marketability of the work which is copied." 1 Nimmer § 1.10[D], at 1-87. Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 567 (U.S. 1985)


Again, A 1-1 KJ paid the customary price for the copyrighted material (CD+G discs). The only argument that a 1-1 media shift materially impairs the marketability of the work copied is the argument that the KJ who 1-1 shifted CD+G product to MP3+G will not re-purchase the same tracks as downloads or other files in MP3 format specifically for computer use in the future.

I am not an IP attorney and this is not legal advice.

I hate to tell you this but you need to read what they are refering to.

HARPER & ROW v. NATION ENTERPRISES, 471 U.S. 539 (1985)
471 U.S. 539
HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS, INC., ET AL. v. NATION ENTERPRISES ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 83-1632.

Argued November 6, 1984
Decided May 20, 1985
Nation lost that cased in the Supreme Court and it was over a newspaper article which simply quoted too much of Gerald Fords book in it's article some 300+ words verbatim from a 1400+ word article. And even as a newspaper they didn't fall under fair use.

Simply put this is Fair Use according to the copyright law!

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

So you have to consider,

1. What you are using the work for are you researching it, educating someone with it using it strictly for your own personal use or are you using it for monetary gain (commercial use)

2. What the nature of the work is and it is simply Karaoke and holds no value to you except for the purpose of monetary gain.

3. How much of the work you are using is going to fall under fair use because as already shown in HARPER & ROW v. NATION ENTERPRISES that even a very small portion of Ford's book being used in a "news article" still consituted copyright infringement. So you certainly can't use the whole of the product and call it fair use.

4. And last what effect does the transfer and use of the product have on the market, you have already stated that the use of a song transfered denies the producer of that product the sale of it in the other format.

So as you can see the fair use agrument is for naught for what we do.

But that doesn't even get to the actual reason for asking for and receiving permission to copy what we own for use on computers, that falls under the Trade Mark law and is a total different animal all together and has a completely different set of rules and exceptions none of which we as KJs qualify for.