Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums
https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/

Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28308		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Smoothedge69 [ Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
This is interesting::: Please read.

http://www.uskaraokealliance.com/images ... se9-08.pdf
Author:  jdmeister [ Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
What happened to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"?
Author:  Smoothedge69 [ Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
Here is another interesting read:

http://www.mtu.com/support/copyright-notes.htm



There are links to IP judgments and laws within this document.


I like this part, right here:


MYTH #4: A KJ must only use original CDG discs in commercial performances, never a copy.

TRUTH: There is no requirement that the original CDG disc must be used in a commercial performance by a KJ. Unless the KJ has waived his ordinary fair use rights to use a lawful CDG disc (by signing a contract), then he could expect to legally copy the files to his computer.
Author:  Lonman [ Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
MTU did fund that BTW. It is an opinion of whoever they contracted. They at one times stated they would fund anyones legal fees if they were using Hoster with every single track accountable for and got named in a lawsuit.
I do not believe that offer is on the table anymore.
Author:  Smoothedge69 [ Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
Lonman wrote:
MTU did fund that BTW. It is an opinion of whoever they contracted. They at one times stated they would fund anyones legal fees if they were using Hoster with every single track accountable for and got named in a lawsuit.
I do not believe that offer is on the table anymore.

Sounds to me like a couple of companies have overstepped their bound doing these lawsuits, though. How can you tell me it is wrong to media shift if it is LEGAL under the law??
Author:  Cueball [ Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
Smoothedge69 wrote:
This is interesting::: Please read.

http://www.uskaraokealliance.com/images ... se9-08.pdf


A letter from 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which still proves my point that everything they said in that letter doesn't say a single thing about ODB KJs (other than the implication of an ODB KJ being illegal because you won't find them listed on the KIAA (POOP) site either.
Author:  Paradigm Karaoke [ Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
jdmeister wrote:
What happened to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"?

that does not apply in civil cases.
Author:  Lonman [ Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
Smoothedge69 wrote:
Lonman wrote:
MTU did fund that BTW. It is an opinion of whoever they contracted. They at one times stated they would fund anyones legal fees if they were using Hoster with every single track accountable for and got named in a lawsuit.
I do not believe that offer is on the table anymore.

Sounds to me like a couple of companies have overstepped their bound doing these lawsuits, though. How can you tell me it is wrong to media shift if it is LEGAL under the law??

Not sure if they overstepped their boundries (ok maybe with PR disc user suits). But every company has a right to recoup what is lost to them.
And it's never been proven legal under law - for commercial use. Again, that is a privately paid opinion from a hosting software company that want people to use their software.
Author:  johnny reverb [ Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
Paradigm Karaoke wrote:
jdmeister wrote:
What happened to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"?

that does not apply in civil cases.


It doesn't apply to criminal cases either....... :)
Author:  Bastiat [ Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
The downside of being a label/producer (or as often referred to as a manu - a term in which I despise) is maintaining one's silence especially knowing the distinction between the reality and perception. I will say however that there is more to this "funding" than what meets the eye. A more detailed and honest look into at what has been referred to as "funding" may put this into an entirely different light. Just sayin'
Author:  Smoothedge69 [ Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
Bastiat wrote:
The downside of being a label/producer (or as often referred to as a manu - a term in which I despise) is maintaining one's silence especially knowing the distinction between the reality and perception. I will say however that there is more to this "funding" than what meets the eye. A more detailed and honest look into at what has been referred to as "funding" may put this into an entirely different light. Just sayin'

So................ummm.......................what are you talking about?
Author:  Brian A [ Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
Smoothedge69 wrote:
Bastiat wrote:
The downside of being a label/producer (or as often referred to as a manu - a term in which I despise) is maintaining one's silence especially knowing the distinction between the reality and perception. I will say however that there is more to this "funding" than what meets the eye. A more detailed and honest look into at what has been referred to as "funding" may put this into an entirely different light. Just sayin'

So................ummm.......................what are you talking about?

Lonman wrote:
MTU did fund that BTW. It is an opinion of whoever they contracted. They at one times stated they would fund anyones legal fees if they were using Hoster with every single track accountable for and got named in a lawsuit.
I do not believe that offer is on the table anymore.

(If I’m not mistaken) I believe he’s referring to Lon’s post above. :wink:
Author:  Lone Wolf [ Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
Really it all doesn't matter. According to SC if you have shifted and have not gotten an audit you are in violation of the law, because they did not give you permission to shift their logo. No PR is coming for the same thing only difference is PR doesn't have an audit practice in place so if you have CB on your computer you are in violation.

Therefore what I see is ANYONE that has SC on their computer without an audit is in violation and ANYONE that has any CB is also.

Also the fact that their investigations are not fully investigated and if the investigator happens to see a computer used for anything he assumes that the KJ is using it for Karaoke.

End of story.
Author:  kjathena [ Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
no it is not according to SC or any other manufacture...it is according to the law
Author:  rickgood [ Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
It's not a law - it's Sound Choice's company policy. Therefore, as smooth edge said, the term "legal" is misleading.
Author:  JimHarrington [ Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
rickgood wrote:
It's not a law - it's Sound Choice's company policy. Therefore, as smooth edge said, the term "legal" is misleading.


The law says not to make duplicates without authorization. The law also says that SC gets to determine the conditions under which that authorization is given, if at all. So, if you make duplicates without authorization, that is indeed illegal and subject to an infringement action, and not merely a violation of a company policy.
Author:  JoeChartreuse [ Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
kjathena wrote:
no it is not according to SC or any other manufacture...it is according to the law



Feel free to quote the criminal law in question....or admit that it's merely a wish for knee-bending COMPLIANCE (as opposed to LAW- which would have been something the actual music owners would have fought for) from SC- and now PR..

Note that SC- once paid off in one manner or another- will turn a blind eye to the media shift- yet cannot give permission to shift the publisher/owners' music.

Please also note my quote from above: "no it is not according to SC or any other manufacture..."

So do you actually ask the used car dealer if theirs is the best deal? SERIOUSLY???

Care to re-state your post, Athena?
Author:  JoeChartreuse [ Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
HarringtonLaw wrote:
rickgood wrote:
It's not a law - it's Sound Choice's company policy. Therefore, as smooth edge said, the term "legal" is misleading.


The law says not to make duplicates without authorization. The law also says that SC gets to determine the conditions under which that authorization is given, if at all. So, if you make duplicates without authorization, that is indeed illegal and subject to an infringement action, and not merely a violation of a company policy.


Please note that even SC's disc labels state "No no unauthorized duplication", which is completely different from no duplication authorized. They do not define "unauthorized". Since backup media to same media copies ARE legal ( per all the court cases of the '90s), then certain copies ARE authorized. Once again, SC CANNOT authorize or not authorize the backup of the MUSIC, which is why settlements will only (hopefully) cause them to turn a "blind eye". Of course, what this really means is that though they claim a crime is being committed, they won't tell anyone (the publishers/owners of the music- who DO have the right to grant permission) if they get paid. That's the "blind eye". Although they say a wrong is being done....they will keep mum for money......
Author:  The Lone Ranger [ Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
8) Seems like a giant game of poker with the manus running a bluff if what you say is correct Joe. The hosts that fight back are calling their bluff. The manus have the advantage since at least 90 to 95% of the hosts are illegal, all the more reason to want to cut loose the legal hosts as soon as possible. They only way they can run this bluff if most hosts are unaware permission does not ultimately rest with then but rather the publishers and creators of the music.
Author:  JimHarrington [ Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sound Choice Letter to Club Owners
JoeChartreuse wrote:
Please note that even SC's disc labels state "No no unauthorized duplication", which is completely different from no duplication authorized. They do not define "unauthorized". Since backup media to same media copies ARE legal ( per all the court cases of the '90s), then certain copies ARE authorized.


First, SC's labels don't say that. They say, "Unauthorized duplication ... is a violation of applicable laws."

The court cases you refer to all involved backup copies for private use only, which was determined to be a fair use under traditional fair use analysis. Fair use analysis requires analyzing two factors in particular that relate to commercial use: whether the use is commercial and the impact on the market for the works.

Because fully half or more of the analysis from the cases you are referring to does not apply, those cases are of very limited precedential value.

Moreover, fair use is only an affirmative defense; it does not constitute authorization.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/