Karaoke Forums

That didn't take long...

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/3154246/Universal_Music_Corp_et_al_v_DigiTrax_Entertainment_LLC_et_al

Wow!

Glad we didn't buy into the cloud!

_________________
-- Mark

Could someone elaborate? The link itself provides no useful information.

_________________
-Chris

We need three threads on this?

This thread would be about the counter suit.

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

Of course there is a counter suit. That's the logical next step. It's still the same legal proceedings.

And you're saying what?.. That this Counter-Suit" can't be discussed within one of the other two repetitious topic threads ("Digitrax vs Universal Music" or "Digitrax sues Universal")? Seriously???????????????

No, I'm not saying that at all. I was just acknowledging the difference between the two topics.
Frankly I don't give a fat rats a$$ about these lawsuits and other than these 2 posts I very rarely post on the legalities issues.
I'd be just as happy if they were all dumped into one thread.
The music industry is corrupt.
Sound Choice and the former Chartbuster are no better, but they get a pass by a bunch on here even though what they have done is no different than a pirate KJ,
and then a KJ who, legally owns the CDGs, and has media shifted without "permission" is considered by a bunch on here as well as by SC and Digitrax to be a pirate.
If this whole thing isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what would be.
End of rant.
Do you have a chip on your shoulder Cue? or just feeling feisty this morning?

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

I don't think any of the "cheerleader" types consider people who own their product and media shift it, to be pirates. We consider people who aren't 1:1 to be pirates. I feel fairly comfortable is speaking for all of the cheerleaders and defining it this way -

pirate (thief) - Someone who possesses a copy/copies of an original without owning the original and/or you aren't 1:1 - original:copy.

That is about as simple as it gets. There isn't any wiggle room on that.

Speaking only for myself, I think it should be as simple as asking for permission from a karaoke company to media shift - no audit, no proof of purchased required, etc. But since SC has stipulated that their requirements are to ask for permission, get an audit, pay a reasonable fee, and those requirements are easy to fulfill, I support their position.

Which by the way, is completely different than a karaoke company not obtaining permission from a copyright holder to produce a version of a copyrighted work. The karaoke companies are producing cover versions for profit which requires permission.

I am guilty of following this down the chain and saying that this is in effect stealing money from the pockets of the copyrights holders, and it effectively is, but there is that subtle difference defined by permission that makes them completely different.

As far as I know, Sound Choice has always recorded their own versions of copyrighted songs and created their own swipes in their own style. They did not take anyone else's backing track or anyone else's backing tracks/swipes, and call them their own (piracy/theft). There are other karaoke companies that have done exactly that and they are the true pirate karaoke companies.

It would seem that Chartbuster made some poor decisions to create their own versions of tracks/swipes and distribute them without permission which isn't piracy/theft. That is just bad business. Which seems to be a contributing factor as to why they aren't around any longer.

There has been a lot of chatter about how draconian the US copyright laws are. It is true that a copyright holder who does not specify how their works can be used, default to what US copyright law allows. But any copyright holder can draft their own rules (licensing) for their own works. That is one of the reasons why we have the GPL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL

_________________
-Chris

But if someone doesn't agree with having to jump thru Sound Choice's hoops for "permission" you "cheerleader types" throw them into the same bucket as the true pirates.


Why would you feel guilty? There are many kinds of theft...it seems according to you cheerleader types the kind of theft perpetrated by the manus is all honky dory and worthy of a free pass by you.



Ok, I see now! It was just bad business by Chartbuster, well what about the KJ who plays karaoke material, but does not own the original CDGs for that material - isn't that (according to your own line of thought) just bad business and nothing else??? If one is thievery why isn't the other, please explain, I'm curious to learn more about your sense of ethics.

Now I certainly am not condoning piracy, although I know by this post of mine you "cheerleader types" will have put me in that bucket, I am just tired of the rampant hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to the ethics of a KJ and the ethics of the manus.

(edited for a spelling error)

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

Chris, part of the permission part for the manus are paying. It's logical to assume that if a manu doesn't have permission, they didn't pay unless it's a deal like we see with DT and even then we do not have all the facts. In CB's case, it wasn't bad business, it was piracy. It's black and white no better than a hard drive guy. That's the only way it can be sliced.

That is the problem I have had with this position all along. Either everyone who is guilty of taking material without paying for it is a thief, or they all are business's that got caught using material they did not pay for and it is dealt with in a civil court not a criminal one. As long as the remedy is sought through the recovery of money civilly and no criminal penalties are envolved, then it is a business mistake and not theft, period.

Some of the cheerleaders may take that stance, but not all of us. I believe that if someone knows that they are supposed to get permission/get an audit and they willingly don't, then they should not be surprised if they get sued. They aren't pirates, they are just thumbing their noses at the process and asking for trouble.




Not guilty as in I feel a personal sense of accountability on behalf of the manufacturers. Guilty as in I have given the impression that the manufacturers are stealing. I don't give them a free pass at all. I just don't air my grievances about it as publicly as some other do. Mostly because there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. I can't sue the manufacturers on behalf of the rights holders. But I can hold my fellow karaoke hosts feet to the fire for piracy/theft because I can make an impact there. I try to choose my battles more carefully than some.

I may be a cheerleader for paying for your music, and getting audits where required, but I am not the ultra-right-wing cheerleader that some are. I choose my battles more wisely than some.




I know you want me to agree with you that what Chartbuster supposedly did and what karaoke hosts do are one and the same, but they aren't. Yes, it is bad business in both instances because of the potential negative impacts on the respective businesses. But Chartbuster didn't outright steal anything. The created something and then distributed it without the proper permission.

Pirates aren't creating anything, they are copying someone else's original work.

Permission vs Theft.

It isn't my responsibility to convince you of the difference.




Again, I don't have a double standard, I just take to task the folks I can have an impact on. I can report a KJ directly to SC and know that it will at least be heard by Kurt. I can report a karaoke company a million times to Universal and it ends up in a black hole.

(edited for a spelling error)[/quote]

_________________
-Chris

Now your playing with the definition of stealing to fit your position Chris.
What Chartbuster created was a “copy” (their version) of an original work and then distributed it for profit without getting the proper and required licensing.
How can that be looked at as anything else BUT stealing?


Whether you believe it or not, you do.

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

Actually, we generally don't know what the terms are for the permission to be granted. We can only assume that some amount of money has to exchange hands. But it is also possible that a copyright holder only wants a cut of sales, or may just give permission away for free. After all, some of the pro-piracy folks have made the case that just letting copies be made and freely distributed may even good for business.. However, I do fully expect that money does have to change hands.

I also don't know any of the details of the CB licensing (or lack thereof). I don't spend a lot of time looking at legal documents. But I know enough about CB business practices that it I somewhat influenced me to steer clear of Digitrax/Karaoke Cloud (among other reasons).

Regardless.....

It is a weak tactic to always bring up what the manufacturers may have done when it comes to KJ piracy. The whole "Oh yeah??!?!?! Well someone else did this, so there!" argument is pretty common when you don't have a solid position.

_________________
-Chris

it's like Al Capone complaining that his bootleg whiskey was stolen from him.

And the cheer leaders can't stop rooting for Scarface. Amazing!

So if I, for instance, record my own version of Sweet Caroline, and put it on a CD and start selling it at the flea market, or at WalMart, without the permission of the publisher or rights holder, and i make money from it, am I a thief, or did i just not get permission? What about the money i made selling the CD? Are my profits legit?

I don't see much difference.

I can only repeat what CAVS told me when I called them direct, if I back up product for my own show, and not copying material and selling it as the original product no harm no foul. That the legal process manus are engaging in legal racketeering by selling protection to use a product they don't fully own title to. Their protection only extends to their lawyers not suing you, and still leaves the host open to suits by other owners of the material.

To answer your question rick you have to meet two requirements to have your profits made illegal. First you have to copy the material without paying the proper fees and getting the rights holders permission. The second element needed is producing a copy that is so close to some original label that you could not tell the difference between the two. Then you have created confusion in the market place, and have engaged in fraud a criminal act, not a civil matter.

Most hosts are not trying to create confusion in the market place, and reselling the copied material as some original product, so no fraud attaches. There lies the rub while pirate hosts are engaging in questionable business practices, they are not defrauding the public. They promise to provide a service and are paid to provide that service and when they do, no fraud. They are being called to task by the legal process manus for their questionable business practices, no criminal penalties attach. Ironically using this two acts definition of piracy the legal process manus are closer to being criminal than the lowly host. They are not paying the proper fees and then selling the product to the public, true it is originally their product, but still not totally kosher, whether it is fraud or not is another matter. I would have to say in that case it is not criminal activity since the owners of the material aka the publishers like EMI have elected to sue SC in civil court. In fact only one company has been cited under civil RICO in the karaoke industry SC by CAVS, SC paid off CAVS does that mean they were guilty cheerleaders?

Yes Insane I wonder how many hosts are glad? Also how many are going to be lining up to subscribe with this type of activity going on? Even this spinoff company of CB seems to be unable to function without problems. I just wonder how long before they go the way of the parent and go out of business to avoid legal liabilities.

That would be the $64,000 question.

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.