| Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/ |
|
| Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=20421 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | DigiTrax Karaoke [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
We are preparing to release a major announcement regarding 1:1 copying on Monday, November 1, which will coincide with the rollout of our new website. I will update the forum with a complete release as soon as we go public. |
|
| Author: | Wall Of Sound [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
Thank you Debi. I look forward to it. |
|
| Author: | ripman8 [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
Debi? |
|
| Author: | DannyG2006 [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
Actually it's mr grimes, not debi. Debi is answering over at the other forum, wall. |
|
| Author: | Wall Of Sound [ Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
DannyG2006 @ Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:15 am wrote: Actually it's mr grimes, not debi. Debi is answering over at the other forum, wall.
Thanks for the heads up Danny. |
|
| Author: | DannyG2006 [ Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
This was in a post on another forum from Debi: Chartbuster Acceptable Use Policy The following constitutes acceptable use for Chartbuster Karaoke intellectual property. It covers the use of any of our manufactured discs, and authorized downloads which are currently exclusively available through ChartbusterKaraoke.com. Individuals and business enterprises that follow this policy may do so without the threat of litigation from Chartbuster Karaoke. • You may not shift the content of the original media to any non-original medium, unless you are in compliance with our media-shifting policy. • Provided that such media-shifting is otherwise in compliance with the laws of the United States or Canada (as applicable), you may shift the content stored on each of the original media to ONE non-original medium of your choice. • You must maintain possession of the original media whose content you have shifted during the entire time the content is stored on the non-original medium. • While the content has been shifted, you may not use the original media for any purpose, commercial or otherwise. • If you desire to shift the content of any of the original media to more than one non-original medium, you must acquire one or more additional original media, so that you maintain a 1-to-1 relationship between original media and the non-original media. • We do not indemnify you against any action or claim by any third party. |
|
| Author: | Lonman [ Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
Pretty much the same as SC. Cool! Although it doesn't mention custom discs that were made through CB, I am assuming these to be under the download catagory. |
|
| Author: | twansenne [ Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
Don't think it really matters what SC or CB or any other manu says. Until the LAW changes, you are still illegal even if you are 1:1 ratio. Yeah, it is great of SC & CB to "say" they aren't gonna go after you if you maintain 1:1 ratio. |
|
| Author: | Dr Fred [ Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
Another way to interpret the law and case history is that you were legal if you were 1:1 BEFORE chartbuster and Sound Choice's announcements. This view has a lot more support than the other viewpoint to the contrary. |
|
| Author: | Lonman [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
Dr Fred @ Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:27 pm wrote: Another way to interpret the law and case history is that you were legal if you were 1:1 BEFORE chartbuster and Sound Choice's announcements.
This view has a lot more support than the other viewpoint to the contrary. Sure anyone that wants to look at it that way is and was going to anyway regardless - believing they were legal to being with when in fact they weren't/aren't. But again, there are kj's that still believe that their ebay hard drives are perfectly fine and have no intention on doing anything to change that - I personally know 2. Now at least there are 2 manufacturers stating you can format shift their product with an original disc to back it up. |
|
| Author: | Dr Fred [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 6:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
I hope no-one ever claimed buying a full hard drive was legal on this site. I never claimed it was, and hope I was not misinterpreted to say it was. I only claimed that 1:1 disc-hard drive is legal, and has been so for some time. Yes there is a grey area, but in terms of the law, many aspects of life are never fully spelled out, hence the courts. Since transfer of music to hard drive from CD has been happening for well over 10 years, and it has never been really challenged in court (for 1:1) it is accepted as legal. The only reason SC and others have insisted it is illegal is that they know that they can use it as leverage because the average KJ can't afford the legal costs that it would take to settle the issue, even when the KJ knows with near 100% certainty that their side would win. Such a case would involve a long trial and likely appeals to be fully settled, and would cost far more than SC's extortion of forcing someone to buy the GEM series and sign their soul away. Downloaded songs are legal also so long as the royalties to artists are paid by the manu, and the download site is authorized by the manu. |
|
| Author: | rumbolt [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
Dr Fred @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:39 am wrote: I hope no-one ever claimed buying a full hard drive was legal on this site.
I never claimed it was, and hope I was not misinterpreted to say it was. I only claimed that 1:1 disc-hard drive is legal, and has been so for some time. Yes there is a grey area, but in terms of the law, many aspects of life are never fully spelled out, hence the courts. Since transfer of music to hard drive from CD has been happening for well over 10 years, and it has never been really challenged in court (for 1:1) it is accepted as legal. The only reason SC and others have insisted it is illegal is that they know that they can use it as leverage because the average KJ can't afford the legal costs that it would take to settle the issue, even when the KJ knows with near 100% certainty that their side would win. Such a case would involve a long trial and likely appeals to be fully settled, and would cost far more than SC's extortion of forcing someone to buy the GEM series and sign their soul away. Downloaded songs are legal also so long as the royalties to artists are paid by the manu, and the download site is authorized by the manu. And here in the States, what sites would those be in regards to the major manus? |
|
| Author: | Lonman [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
Dr Fred @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:39 am wrote: I hope no-one ever claimed buying a full hard drive was legal on this site.
I never claimed it was, and hope I was not misinterpreted to say it was. I only claimed that 1:1 disc-hard drive is legal, and has been so for some time. Yes there is a grey area, but in terms of the law, many aspects of life are never fully spelled out, hence the courts. Since transfer of music to hard drive from CD has been happening for well over 10 years, and it has never been really challenged in court (for 1:1) it is accepted as legal. The only reason SC and others have insisted it is illegal is that they know that they can use it as leverage because the average KJ can't afford the legal costs that it would take to settle the issue, even when the KJ knows with near 100% certainty that their side would win. Such a case would involve a long trial and likely appeals to be fully settled, and would cost far more than SC's extortion of forcing someone to buy the GEM series and sign their soul away. Downloaded songs are legal also so long as the royalties to artists are paid by the manu, and the download site is authorized by the manu. I would love to see the case where 1:1 was proven legal, please show the link if you have it? Your attitude is the example I was getting at, because you believe it, it must be so. All the manus have had that stance not just SC. Now they are defining that they acknowledge the use of PC and agree they will not pursue if you own/can prove original media to back up your hard drive. |
|
| Author: | toqer [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
Lonman @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:55 am wrote: I would love to see the case where 1:1 was proven legal, please show the link if you have it?
Your attitude is the example I was getting at, because you believe it, it must be so. Same can be said about either side of this debate Lon. Where's your link proving otherwise? |
|
| Author: | Lonman [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
toqer @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:40 pm wrote: Lonman @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:55 am wrote: I would love to see the case where 1:1 was proven legal, please show the link if you have it? Your attitude is the example I was getting at, because you believe it, it must be so. Same can be said about either side of this debate Lon. Where's your link proving otherwise? Well I am going by copyright law as written for personal/private use only. And the numerous statements by nearly all the manus stating we are not allowed to format shift. All I was getting at is now manus are at least recognizing and going along with it stating they would not go after a 1:1 user, and people still have a problem with it because they may have to show their discs as a stipulation. |
|
| Author: | timberlea [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
And did anyone notice the part where a third party (read copyright holder) could still sue if they wish. Al their statement says is that they won't go after you if you can prove 1:1, which means audit, since tht's the only way they can confirm. Fred, just because you believe something is so doesn't mean it's true. I also find it strange that no attorney in the US or Canada wouldn't take a case on Pro Bono just to get the publicity and to enhance their career as a dragon slayer. But then again they probably know they would have no case. |
|
| Author: | Lonman [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
timberlea @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:43 pm wrote: And did anyone notice the part where a third party (read copyright holderor publisher if the rights weren't obtained by manus to begin with) could still sue if they wish. Exactly, which is most likely not going to happen.
|
|
| Author: | WEIRDAL [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
My opinion: I believe that as long as there is NO LAW against something, and NO PRECEDENT court case (which could STILL be appealed if no specific law exists) then something tens of thousands of people are doing is considered legal until LAW or PRECEDENT is passed and established. 1:1 ratio for digital conversion and use to protect product without simultaneous use of the original is the law of the land (original law said for private use of the original holder), and protects copyright holders. This practice, for COMMERCIAL purposes was not covered in the language of the law concerning this "shifting to more convenient medium" (congress used this language to be able to automatically cover advances in technology/storage and use mediums and machines). HOWEVER, look at the first paragraph above, again. This concept of legal shifting and use was adopted by professionals for commercial use, and it has never been challenged and had a ruling against the practice of shifting as long as copyright law was followed and simultaneous use of original AND digital copy was avoided. As for ONLY shifting to one alternative media (digital, on hard drive)...since it took me almost a year of ALL my free time, and thousands I paid in wages to helpers to shift my originals to digital....(in biz 21 yrs, laser discs don't SPEED transfer, plays in real time for conversion) there's no way a smart person would wait for a hard drive to fail or be stolen to have to do all that work again. What would a sane person do? What would YOU do? ANY business using documents, with paper originals, manually scanned into digital form... would be considered INSANELY STUPID to not have a backup stored off-site to avoid having to scan all over again if their hard drive died where digital copy FOR USE was stored. But that's a matter to be determined by courts and legislators "when they get around to it". Until then, what goes on, goes on. My opinion: No lawyer, no company, no DJ, no KJ no BODY wants to pay to establish precedent in court, especially when looked at REASONABLY during appeals process any restrictive, wasteful and economically damaging ruling would be overturned on appeal and/or negated by legislation that will one day catch up with common business practices that DON'T VIOLATE COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK law as people struggle to protect their investment they PAID FOR, and make arrangements to avoid duplicating labor intensive activities of conversion by having a backup of the digital form available (but not used, once again obeying the spirit of the law with no simultaneous use). ONCE AGAIN, MY OPINION of common sense. Don't be scared SC and CB. People will either be honest or succumb to temptation on their own. For those who act honestly while protecting what they paid for, congratulations. You can be sure some companies involved in all this want to make simplistic "rulings" and "after the fact/purchase" DECLARATIONS and one sided agreement proclamations, because the average consumer and DJ and KJ cant understand the fairly simple legal concepts I described above, without thinking it's ok to duplicate ENTIRE LIBRARIES willy-nilly and sell them around. I was interested to hear about that guy in Vegas or LA, forget which, who was selling drives with 100,000 songs for $500. My business suffered severe and FATAL losses of business just from DISC COPYING piracy 12 years ago....this hard drive mess was an atomic bomb for the manus. Basically, what hit me 12 years ago has hit them finally. ALL those guys I reported who were NEVER harrassed and prosecuted by SC, CB, MM and others when it was ME who was dying, are finally going to be tapped by the companies mentioned. I am very good at seeing the future. All those people who are paying the $6500 that SC wants for anyone who has even ONE SC digital copy without the original who PAID to not be sued, harrassed, or prosecuted????? Well, that was the bush fire...left the trees standing (these pirates continue in business, not helping me at all doing this boys)....but now CB is getting ready to come around with a CHAIN SAW and cut the trees still standing.....that's right, you people who paid SC....get ready, you are going to pay AGAIN and AGAIN every time another company comes to town, with your name on a list of people SC SUCCESSFULLY soaked...and you will be threatened with a lawsuit AGAIN,and soaked AGAIN....and AGAIN, until you go out of business. THAT"S YOUR FUTURE. HERE IT COMES! |
|
| Author: | DannyG2006 [ Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
WEIRDAL, the difference between SC and Chartbuster is that they are not going to settle with the pirates but are planning to take them out completely. Those that got soaked by SC better remove any CB content before they hit. Same goes for Pop Hits although they have a compliance resolver program that for $2800 you can use any THM, UK & PHM content you have. |
|
| Author: | DigiTrax Karaoke [ Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chartbuster announcement on 1:1 |
WEIRDAL @ Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:41 pm wrote: My opinion:
... ANY business using documents, with paper originals, manually scanned into digital form... would be considered INSANELY STUPID to not have a backup stored off-site to avoid having to scan all over again if their hard drive died where digital copy FOR USE was stored. There's something to consider that might put a dent in this portion of your argument. Digital versions of purchased music aren't the same as business documents, they are more akin to capital purchases your business makes, like buying sub-widgets you need to produce finished widgets. In the same way that a sub-widget might be protected by patent laws, music is covered by copyright laws. This includes making derivative works. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|