Karaoke Forums

And I will add in, say for some crazy reason, the manus do get a judge to go agains a KJ/DJ doing a 1:1 format shift, they have to prove damages.  
What are the damages?

WELL SAID KARYOKER!!!!!

And I will add in, say for some crazy reason, the manus do get a judge to go agains a KJ/DJ doing a 1:1 format shift, they have to prove damages.  
What are the damages?  

I keep preaching this, and preaching this, but is anyone listening?

wansenne @ Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:34 pm wrote:
WELL SAID KARYOKER!!!!!

And I will add in, say for some crazy reason, the manus do get a judge to go agains a KJ/DJ doing a 1:1 format shift, they have to prove damages.  
What are the damages?  

I keep preaching this, and preaching this, but is anyone listening?
and I've answered you, and you've not replied about it.

they don't have to prove SQUAT. It's their copyrighted material you're replicating, either on computer or on cdr. All they have to do is point to the law AS IT'S WRITTEN TODAY that in a commercial setting, it's NOT allowed.

PERIOD.

I've argued your case directly to Bob at Sound Choice... for it was my case as well. And they've proven their point to me. Two points, actually. By going after the commercial jocks that are 1:1 as well as the multiriggers, they've proven

SYRACUSE - A lawsuit against a downtown bar over copyright violations stemming from a weekly karaoke night has been settled.

The suit, against the Bull & Bear Pub in Hanover Square, ended with the bar agreeing to pay for a license, says Richard Reimer, in-house counsel for the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), which initiated the suit.

ASCAP is a membership association of more than 240,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers and it files hundreds of lawsuits similar to the one against the Bull & Bear every year, Reimer says. The group's members hold the copyrights on their songs, and on their behalf ASCAP licenses those rights to bars, restaurants, and anywhere else the music is played publicly.

A part of the society's work is finding locations that don't have licenses and signing them up, Reimer explains. In the Bull & Bear's case, the bar is being sued for five specific copyright infringements that took place during a karaoke event there, Reimer says.
Advertisement

The license granted to the Bull & Bear will cost the pub less than $1,000 per year, he adds. He declined to comment on any other details of the settlement.

"We're gratified the matter was settled quickly," Reimer says. "It probably saved [the bar] potentially significant legal costs and the aggravation that litigation usually entails."

Mark Bullis, founder and owner of the bar, says he and ASCAP settled the suit for the cost of the license only. There were no additional financial penalties, he says.

The bar no longer holds a karaoke night, but not specifically because of the lawsuit, he adds.

"It went through its ups and downs anyway," he says.

He also says he believes ASCAP was looking to make an example of a local bar, and it wound up being his.

"I think it was ridiculous," he says. "It was more of a lawsuit for headlines. It's unfortunate we had to be the people that caught the bad end of that thing."

In an earlier interview, Bullis described the lawsuit against his business as "pathetic."

He said he believed the bar did not need a license itself because a professional, licensed karaoke company provided the karaoke services. He emphasized he was not looking to break the law, he simply did not believe the bar needed a license.

He also said he felt he was being "bullied" by ASCAP.

Hancock & Estabrook LLP was ASCAP's local counsel in the matter.

Penalties for copyright violations range from $750 to $30,000 per violation, according to ASCAP. The suit against the Bull & Bear sought financial penalties against the bar and a ban on karaoke there without a license.

Although no one professionally performed the songs in question, the bar is still required to have a license, Reimer explains. The actual plaintiffs in the suit were the companies and artists who own the copyrights on the songs, which ineluded "Fire" and "Glory Days" by Bruce Springsteen, "The Middle" by Jimmy Eat World, "All Night Long (All Night)" by Lionel Richie, and "Fly Away" by Lenny Kravitz.

The plaintiffs included Springsteen, Miss Bessie Music, Brockman Music, Brenda Richie Publishing, and Turkey on Rye Music. Reimer says ASCAP has employees who scour the country looking for establishments using copyrighted music without licenses.

ASCAP eventually hired a private investigator who went to the bar during one of its karaoke nights. The investigator spent about three hours at the pub, made a list of the songs he recognized, and reported them to the society, Reimer says.

However I have spent days googling and tryng to find a karaoke bust in a non-communist country there is none.. I have spent days googling for a karaoke cd manu suing a karaoke host for illegal activity concerning copyright lawsuits.. There are none.. Until the practice of transferring to a hard drive is determined in a district court and the fair use act applied, nobody knows what is illegal and what is accepted...

Detroit, MI (March 14, 2001) – As a result of tips to KAPA, investigators representing KAPA discovered a karaoke host using illegal copies of CDGs in her show. After investigating this host, the investigator reported this illegal activity to the authorities.

On March 1, 2001 US Marshalls seized 49 counterfeit CDGs from Ms. Speigel during her show in Detroit, MI. Speigel, who is co-partners with Platinum Entertainment, was served with a complaint, motion, order, writ and summons. Ms. Speigel admitted that she was aware the CDGs were copies. The illegal copies were seized and will be held as evidence pending court action.

I think there is action being taken against hacks in Canada...see below

Fake Karaoke tracks result in charges

December 23, 2005

As a result of a 14-month investigation, the Hamilton RCMP Federal Enforcement Section has charged a Brantford, ON man with illegally copying and selling Karaoke tracks in violation of the Copyright Act.

It is believed that this is the first incident where charges have been laid under the Copyright Act involving the illegal reproduction and sales of copyrighted Karaoke tracks.

The charges stem from a complaint by the Canadian Alliance Against Music Piracy (CAAMP) about the unauthorized reproduction and sale of Karaoke tracks. The rights to these Karaoke tracks belong to several companies who produce and package the programs for the karaoke industry. Karaoke is a popular form of entertainment in which people sing along to sound tracks while reading the words to the song from a screen.

In Canada, CAAMP estimates that $2 Million dollars are lost annually to the karaoke music industry as a result of illegal copying and re-selling of Karaoke programs.

“Not only is there a financial loss to the industry, but also a huge loss of jobs from the manufacturing sector down to the retail store. We need to get the message out that there is a penalty to be paid for the infringing upon the intellectual property rights of Karaoke track producers as well as the rights of the producers of all other forms of musical works, “ said Ken Stuart, president of CAAMP, an umbrella group representing many Karaoke track producers.

Murray Dulphis McLean, 36, of Wellington Street, Brantford, ON is charged with:

one count of did knowingly and unlawfully makes for sale an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, contrary to Section 42(1)(a) of the Copyright Act.
Two count did knowingly and unlawfully offering for sale and selling an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists contrary to Section 42(1)(b) of the Copyright Act.
McLean’s first appearance is set for January 27, 2006 in the Ontario Court of Justice in Brantford, ON.

I believe he was convicted and sentenced to a year in jail as this was treated as a case of theft.  I am checking my sources to see what exactly happened.

Karyoker, it does not take very much searching on the net to find clear and concise information stating that the FAIR USE ACT ONLY APPLIES to copying for PERSONAL USE.. ie you can only hide behind the fair use act if you play your copied disks to your family and/or close friends.

Didn't take long to find these either:

Detroit, MI (March 14, 2001) – As a result of tips to KAPA, investigators representing KAPA discovered a karaoke host using illegal copies of CDGs in her show. After investigating this host, the investigator reported this illegal activity to the authorities.

On March 1, 2001 US Marshalls seized 49 counterfeit CDGs from Ms. Speigel during her show in Detroit, MI. Speigel, who is co-partners with Platinum Entertainment, was served with a complaint, motion, order, writ and summons. Ms. Speigel admitted that she was aware the CDGs were copies. The illegal copies were seized and will be held as evidence pending court action.

Rochester, NY (March 14, 2001) -- In December of 2000, a private investigator representing KAPA engaged in conversation with Karaoke host Andy Schneider at a Restaurant/Bar in Rochester, NY. During the course of the conversation, Andy offered to burn copies of the CDGs for the investigator. During subsequent conversations, Andy was given a cash advance towards the completion of the job.

Working in conjunction with the NY State Police and the Monroe County Assistant District Attorney, the investigator made arrangements to meet Schneider at his residence and finalize the transaction. On January 29, 2001, Andrew Schneider completed the sale of 115 counterfeit CDGs with the private investigator. Once the CDGs were identified as counterfeit, the NY State Police arrested Schneider at his residence. He has been charged with Trademark Counterfeiting in the 3rd Degree.