Karaoke Forums

Sure,  and in CT it's illegal to have non-missionary sex on Sundays.  To that I'll say "The hell with certain laws". I have a right to live a fair and reasonable existence, without accumulating more stresses than absolutely necessary, and I also wish to live in a "fair" world, but the world seldom IS fair, SO, I'll risk breaking certain laws as an adult. What you call "Theft of services", I will reasonably be able to justify to a court is "backing up my investments" which I payed GOOD money for, and like certain titles SIGNED BY OTHERS, I shall have copies to protect myself. This is fair, and reasonable use. To not do-so, the only one that really loses out in specific instances such as theft is *ME* by following such laws implicitly. Courts look at this case by case ! I have no money tree in my yard to afford 2X the capital for a library due to theft, and such circumstance. I should not need to pay that amount.  We live in a grey world, and when copies will ONLY be used in an emergency situation I will deem your logic unreasonably costly in accordance to MY own perspective, and bank account.  I will consider INTENT to be what governs my actions, and,  I will NOT always staunchly adhere to ALL laws !  but, I will assume responsibility for breaking them, as well as the conveniences of breaking them, factoring in numerous other areas that do not preclude *ME*, my needs, funds/ resources and aspects of "fair use".

While we tell our children laws exist for a reason, MOST do, but children lack ability to make certain decisions, they lack capacity for complex reason, so they can't formulate ethical constructs HOWEVER as adults we can reason, and decide certain things for ourselves weighing pros and cons..  

As adults another thing we in time learn, is that to live a TOTALLY law-abiding existence is something that doesn't exist ESPECIALLY within the businesses (you feel we are "stealing from"), and of course within the government that's supposed to uphold such laws, as well as the court systems that are supposed to enforce them. Where there's ambiguity in statute/ laws, there's some play. No "bottomline".  Unless of course YOU are Judge & Jury. It's clear my intent is not theft or monetary gain !

*I'll* consider circumstance, intent, what I deem reasonable,  who suffers damages, *IF* it's me that gets the short end of the stick, I'm going to look out for number one !  Plain and simple !   I'm not quite as altruistic as you are.  

I'm paying a reasonable sum to the business and artist for use, and if the world WAS truly as fair as you state, the small businessman wouldn't be suffering disproportionately by theft, than the huge business you claim a small business person is "stealing from" by merely backing up his investment for use in cases of THEFT ! Few of us have unlimited capital; when somebody steals from me, I shouldn't be losing my CD collection and livelihood without having access to REASONABLE options/resources which includes AFFORDABLE backup. Insurance is only longterm help and is limited.  *If it really helps at all*

There's seldom time to run out and purchase a new library between time of theft, and a business persons show.  So, according to your logic TWICE  the money for a library (mininally) would be the only plausable option. To me this IS NOT reasonable given theft loss.  So call "backing up" music stealing,  I call it "backing up" a business investment because the world IS dishonest, I have limited income, and should not be paying a disproportionate sum for use of "music" when I payed my usage dues.  

This is a Grey area. It's illegal to steal true, but ALL steal, just to stay alive. If not from man, nature.  By your logic the "smart" business person will now need to spend two or three times the amount his CD library might otherwise cost in lieu of the fact that there's always the risk of a person or unforseen accident wiping out the entertainers collection suddenly, hence, the only responsible solution is to spend 40,000 minimally, for your 20,000 dollar CD library.

You might opt to live within a world (which forces us into grey) by abiding implicitly to ALL laws "because they are written for a reason", laws that the businesses you state we are stealing from seldom honor, and I'll again say "reasonable use" and *INTENT* is what I will decide governs MY OWN actions, not all/none behaviour, I will decide what I believe to be fair in some cases, and reasonable as well. I will also assume consequences to my actions assuming a staunch individual living in a black/white world wishes to "bust me" (an individual who IS NOT made of money, and can not afford to invest 40K into a 20K library) or call it payout for more CD's, "or MUSIC" use, etc etc in a crooked world. I will make my own decisions based on the fact that my intent is to ONLY preserve and protect my initial investment which was stolen, AND I can't afford, and don't find it reasonable to spend twice (minimally) my initial investment because there ARE crooks in this world.  My intent is not to steal anything, but if somebody wishes to call such a small thing "stealing" given circumstances, I'll consider all factors.  Call it what you wish however, Kudo's if you have such finances that enable you to live comfortably in your black/white world.  There are some extremely stupid laws, some of which only benefit the "big guy". I disagree I'm stealing from anyone. I don't wish to pad their pockets with additional royalties when somebody else breaks the law and steals my CD collection. THAT'S the bottomline. What is the monetary loss to these large businesses and artists when I can't work due to theft ?  Answer me that !
This is a reasonable right I have to live comfortably and within an affordable means. (You call it "rationalization",  but I'll call it common sense),  I have medical and dental bills I must pay that additional 20K to (because our unfair government is using my tax money to give full medical bene's to a border jumper in a state hospital who gets full medical when I can't). You call it "going out of my way to justify breaking laws",  I say "Go get them Barney Fife". You are ridiculous !

As an adult often forced by our government to support some pretty nasty activities,  vote on leaders that become leaders due to supporting dishonesty much of the time, AND, as an adult that pays royalities to businesses that have boards and CEO's cutting one-anothers throats,  *I* will decide when what you call stealing, is reasonably backing up my "Karaoke" investment.   There's no money tree in my back yard.  My intent was to keep what I bought, and NOT have to resort to my backup..  I suppose we have a different concept of what "frivolous" and "trite" areas within law are, not to mention within a grey world where a margin of allowance is acceptable. As an adult who has financial responsibilities given an income not commensurate to 100% adherence to ALL laws, I'll  decide WHAT laws fall into a grey area for me, and assume responsibility for my actions, and reactions.  




Bottom line: Life is grey, not everything must follow "bottomline" mentality.  Not all is "copyright infringement". Intent is considered by courts.  Worse things are going to happen this year to me than backing up a CD collection !   In fact, worse things will likely happen if I DO NOT !

Much today that's "law", is tomorrows ammended law that only was addressed as a bill because it got pushed into the court system,  that's what it took to deem it unfair in the first place "a bust", because so much is otherwise tough to change. What you call "REASONABLE law", may not be reasonable at all, some things are time consuming, and tough to get to legislation, they aren't a priority.

Lastly, there is NO comparison between a woman selling several million dollars worth of pirated Karaoke CD-G's on Ebay,   and the struggling small businessman trying to make ends meet "backing up" his library and only using it when in dire-straits,  the later doesn't belong in this same thread, it's a ludicrous analogy !

Oh yeah,  and regarding "newbie with three stars".   Newbie joined KS  March 2004



That's not a similar analogy.  The retailer must pay the distributor per blouse. To take a blouse without paying is stealing tangible inventory that has a set value that's been established.  HOWEVER once you buy that one blouse, at home OR when out, you can take similar material and copy that blouse and wear the copy,  you can cut that blouse in half and make two identical smaller blouses for the 4 year old twins, and can do as you please with it, you can't go back into the store and take another blouse, true... but what you do with that one blouse you own is up to you, which includes making an exact replica with cheap material, or MANY replicas...If you don't use the designers name, you can copy it !  You can photostat the blouse, photograph it, and sell the artwork for as much as you'd like too...  Once it's in your home, it's yours to do as you please with the material.. You can even sew a laCoste alligator onto it, and wear it to a COMMERCIAL get together. you won't get sued !  But if you copy a CD-G onto your blank to only use if the original is stolen THAT is a HUGE crime because ?????

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Matt, then I suggest you never go into business ever again.  I know of very few, if any businesses, that are not governed by laws, rules, or regulations.  I believe you work or worked with a transport company?  How many rules and regulations, ie being dictated to, did they have to follow and obey, even before opening their doors.

We still use our original DKs (well over 10 yrs) and every other disc over 15 yrs in business.  If a disc breaks or is scratched, well that's the cost of doing business.  A couple of discs will not stop us from conducting business and having a great show.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I'm glad you have replaceable songs... songs that you feel are worth losing over the ravages of time, misuse, etc. To be honest, I only lost ONE cdg in 15 years, and that was when it dropped onto the table leg, and cracked. The others were all hosts that worked for me that abused the discs, either because they didn't know any better or were flat out careless.

For me, with the really rare discs and lasers I have... nope, I'll convert. If the law says no, then I don't do it for a business... and gee whiz, that's exactly what I did!

How can you say that so categorically.  Case law says otherwise.... quote from IPJustice.org:

"However, even if a KJ’s copying of his or her CDG discs to a computer were considered to be “commercial”, should it ever be tested in court, it can still be perfectly legal under fair use.

Despite a commercial intent weighing against fair use, there have been a number of cases in US copyright law where commercial uses have been ruled lawful fair use.

For example the US Supreme Court found a commercial use to be a lawful fair use in the famous “Pretty Woman” parody case.5 In this case, rappers 2 Live Crew recorded a parody of Roy Orbison’s well-known song “Pretty Woman” and called it “Harry Woman.” Not amused, Orbison’s Estate sued the 2 Live Crew for copyright infringement. Admittedly, the 2 Live Crew copied and distributed Orbison’s song entirely for commercial purposes. Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court ruled that the copying was lawful fair use despite the fact that it was done for a commercial purpose."

So, the law is not as specific as you might think.  It may be considered slanderous to call somebody a "thief" when their copies may well be proven a lawful fair use!

There actually has never been any 'case' law regarding format shifting.

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

Exactly my point Lonman!  R.E. categorically states you CANNOT do this.  But there is no case law to say you cannot.  I'm just providing info based on known cases.

Unfortunately those known cases don't have anything to do with karaoke.  IPJustice isn't the end of all discussion, it is THEIR own opinion/interpretation of the law as they see it, like many here.  The original study has been floating on these forums since '03, this new one just came out a couple months ago.  Doesn't necessarily mean they are anymore correct than SC/Stellar telling people they flat out can't transfer the usage to computer.

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

My feelings on this are regarding "bottomline" aspects.  

We are a species that kills and steals land,  we steal lives to eat and stay alive. While I won't try to vindicate such behaviour, I'm not going to lose much sleep over "backing my investment" because somebody cares to call that "stealing".  There's no evidence that THAT is stealing. It's not even subject to logical scrutiny when one factors in reason and intent. Assuming this even were cut and dry law, it merely serves to keep the fat and happy, fatter and happier, at an unreasonable cost to the small guy who gets hit hardest. In such a case what *IS* the monetary loss incurred to the artist, by the KJ backing up his CD's to use only in the case of theft ?  Courts won't see this type case likely anytime soon because it's tough to establish loss (which would be negligible to the plaintiff suing the small KJ).  When you sue, you sue somebody that has money !  A drawback however of such cases not entering court, is that such grey areas linger and little is settled.

Until a court deems otherwise,  what this individual is saying is bottomline "theft", I will say is a reasonable means of protecting my assets, which falls within fair use.

<Hey, somebody has to take the side of "the small guy" in an argument>  LMAO



Which costs them HOW much to produce "more of" ?  If I can produce evidence that my CD's were stolen, let these people who produced the product  WORK WITH ME in a reasonable manner..  With evidence in the case of theft, assuming I provide evidence I have already purchased the exact CD or CD-G from them in the past, let them PRO-RATE purchases. They will still make some profit selling me a second and third copy (assuming I can provide evidence I've already purchased an original from them) when selling to me at a significantly LOWER rate !    That to me would be a form of reasonable compromise, and accommodation !  Until such I time, I maintain that my loss is significantly greater and disproportionate to harm incurred to them by my backing my own investment.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

In order to have case law, a case actually has to go to court to be ruled on.  In other words, if it hasn't been challenged in court, the current law stands as is.  Everyone here is calling for case law.  In this instance from what I can tell, ther IS NO case law.  Anything IPJustice says is legal opinion.  That and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee.  And also notice that no where on their site do they state they will represent a karaoke host free of charge if they get charged for 1:1 copying or format shifting.  To me, that's quite telling.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Which of course is true Tim, however certain blue laws in this state have never been changed, they remain in the books as written hundred of years back. They aren't enforced, or even reasonably enforceable. They served a purpose at one time, were never amended.  Should people deliberately break them ?  OF course not, but should a persons life be stifled because of an unreasonable and current ludicrous law that nobody cares enough to amend ? laws that have just become sources for joke books to write about ?  When unanimous current (2007) response to certain laws is "Oh that law, don't worry about it".  Cases are why these laws exist to begin with !  

Sure, laws are written for a reason, but NOBODY is going to tell me what I can't and can do with another concenting adult in the privacy of my home.  Nobody is going to tell me I can't make a copy of a CD I buy either (assuming I'm doing it to BACK UP my rare copy SO I can hang onto it, without *intent* of making money from it).




Is there or is there not ambiguity here that might fall within "fair use" rights ?  If-so, the fair use act supercedes laws protecting copyright holders.  THIS is one example  in which case law would certainly be a helpful reference.  Otherwise this is a grey area. While some wish to consider all that backup their library crooked, others view this ongoing argument as trite, or an "Alices Restaurant" scenerio.  While nobody should set out, or make a habit of breaking laws, there are degrees of law infraction, and grey areas within certain laws.

So right or wrong.
Who suffers by a small businessman backing his assets "affordably" ?  To what degree is damage incurred by this being done ?
what is that loss compared to the cost of the small businessmans lost incurred by NOT protecting his assets adjunct with, Is it reasonable for a businessman to have to pay twice as much (if not more) to protect his investment ?    

These are legitimate arguing points, and this area really should be addressed, but it SHOULD be done without breaking laws.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

First of all "Fair use" does not cover commercial use and it is plainly stated in the Copyright Act.  There is no grey area.

Second the loss of some discs will not affect the overall business of a karaoke host or a DJ for that matter.  A person is not going to say to you "Oh you broke or lost your SC Eagles disc, you're fired or I'm cutting your pay by x number of dollars".  So you are not going to lose money on your investment.

I bet in 1929 people wished they could have protected their investments but reality is reality.  

Business people often pay twice or more for things to run their business  whether it be tools, vehicles, computers or whatever.  Everything has a lifespan.  Some are longer than others but there will be a day when something has to be replaced due to wear and tear or because it is "lost".

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

TIMBERLEA,

It must be nice living in a Canadian Utopia.


I guess the only things you have there is Black Holes and Blinding White Light.

Sorry as I dont think with a cops mentality where everyone is guilty untill proven Innocent.

There are Grey areas in the law here where The (Lawyers) Legislators here did not address for future expansion and development.

If in fact something isnt specificaly called out in a law, then it is an exclusion.

_________________
______________________________________
I'm Not Dead yet...... But every day Im getting Closer !

Then show me where anywhere in the Copyright Act where it says you can copy for commercial purposes.  In fact it states ONLY in certain circumstances that copies of a work may be copied.  The fact is you and others refuse to accept it.

And again if IPJustice is so sure of their position, why do they not offer free of charge to defend a host if they are charged.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Well Probably because they are a business. a group of lawyers that are in the Intellecual property law Business. If they give away all of their services, they wouldnt be in business too long. The only reason they posted their finding and opinions on the internet was because a client (MTU) Paid them to research and post it. I am quite sure you could hire the to defend you.

as far as any law, or definition a law goes. Nothing is cut in stone. The Supreme court's decision is the only Final definition .  We can post all day here our opinions, and in the end it is their Decision that would decide it.

Sorry, if I spouted here, But you are so fast to defend the Manus here and all the websites. Sound Choices and stellars position May have come as an agreement to do so from a court action as a settlement. It still doesnt make their Position right. It seems as if they state their position, Just Because they are Sound Choice That it is so. They put their pants on the same way I do. Unless I am wearing one of my Rhinestone jumpsuits

Kewl Dude, its all good.

_________________
______________________________________
I'm Not Dead yet...... But every day Im getting Closer !

Commercial use is only ONE of the criteria in determining fair use.  There are a number of other factors that have to be considered and, as has been proven in the US Supreme Court, commercial use does not by itself preclude copying for commercial purposes.



As I have said before, there are two opinions, those of the manufacturers and their supporters, and those of the likes of IPJustice.  Until there is a case in law which decides one way or the other, each opinion will be correct in the eye of the beholder and the argument will be endless.  So, if you put it that way Timberlea, your opinion and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee too!

As EElvis has stated, they are a legal business, and that's how they make money.  How many KJ's would be willing to take on gigs at bars for free of charge?
You can also equally apply Timberlea's argument to the other opinion....  Nowhere is there a case of precedent to support the manufacturers' (SC, Stellar, etc) opinion.  If they are so correct in their opinion, then why haven't they taken the action required... that too is quite telling!

Tim,

   You just furnished more evidence that those claiming "fair use" is not "Grey" regarding specific commercial applications are wrong.  The "Fair Use Exception" DOES NOT preclude Commercial Use, but clearly states that situations MUST be established and ARE in fact considered in CASE by CASE hearings.  This *IS* a situation where "Grey" exists. However, the rule of thumb is that it's always best to ASSUME you are violating copyright by making copies.  ALL areas are considered within fair use exception. This is EXACTLY why "Case Law" IS in fact helpful in litigation.  You are (*as I stated* earlier) playing Judge and Jury in your above statement !   You claim there's no "grey",  read this and you will see it's FULL of grey !

http://www.siia.net/piracy/pubs/copyrightactfairuse.pdf

When you see documentation stating "Is more likely to qualify for fair use", that is grey !   Nowhere does it say Fair Use Exception does not apply to commercial application.  That *IS* the grey area.   People that are presenting material for non-profit purposes are generally "off the hook" so to speak.  But, "GREY" would be regarding commercial ruling.  It's not exempt from the Fair Use Exception.

The law need not state "You can copy for business use" specifically, it nowhere states this can't be done given CERTAIN instances, (meaning cases yet to be established WOULD not be pirating). Hearings regarding this are subjective. The wording DOES NOT give the lay person right to state, "If a person does so for business use they are stealing, or it's is illegal" when you have a case for AMBIGUITY in law, given circumstance this is tried case by case !

The rest of what you state Tim


Is also your opinion !   It's not factual.  "Lifespan" is the argument here, and establishing "Reasonable" and "Fair" use in cases of THEFT ! A grey area.   All subject to court interpretation and opinion !

Not yours, or mine



True,  "Certain cases" means grey. Do you know what such cases are ?  I don't. What I do know is this is an indication that certain individuals WOULD NOT be considered pirating. You are assigning All/None to this but contradicting yourself by posting where it states "Grey" does exist.  The above quote pertains to COMMERCIAL use as well as non-profit use !



AND, they had EVERY RIGHT to wish this !    You are going to tell me "Wishing to protect a significant investment" and in fact doing so is wrong ?   There's no merit to this statement of yours.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

The closest I can come to agreeing with you here Tim,  Is that granted,  "when there are cracks in floorboards, it's safest not to jump around in such areas".  However, some will and can without falling thru.  Such is life.

What *I believe* would be so much more beneficial, would be to take our efforts debating this circular argument back and forth, and attempt instead to utilize such efforts to propose something to legislation that "in cases of theft" it is reasonable for a KJ to use CD-G backing given ______ and _____.  

THAT would be a productive effort on our part.  IOW,  try to wipe out such ambiguity, by proposing something productive in a specific area.  Attempt to get this "carved in stone" (at least for a time being )

(Of course this would require somebody here knows of an individual involved in legislature, and such a person took an interest in entertainment areas)

One additional thought:

CASE:

John Doe KJ purchases $5000 dollars worth of Karaoke CD-G format disks on friday April 27th 2007.  One week later at 5:00 PM May 4th 2007 John Doe calls police regarding B&E in Denny's Parking Lot where Mr. Doe is eating dinner before heading to work at ______ bar and church where John Doe works as a KJ.  Windows to Mr. Does automobile were smashed, and contents were stolen from vehicle.  Included were Mr. Does $5000 library, he was having dinner at Denny's prior to working at ____ bar and church the night of May 4th 2007.  


Complaint:

Mr Doe was served for Copyright violation the night of May 4th 2007 while working at ____bar and church where he was found using copies of original CD-G's while working.

Answer:

Mr. Doe phoned his wife at 6 PM May 4th 2007 stating that a police report has been filed regarding a B&E. Mr Doe was en route to work, his needed materials for work were stolen in an act of larceny at 5 PM May 4th 2007.  Mr. Doe made 30 backup copies in CD-G format of Karaoke music at some point during the week prior to working the evening of May 4th 2006. His wife delivered the copies to his place of work the evening of May 4th 2007 so he could work his job as entertainer.  Karaoke Music he purchased the prior week was stolen. He has documentation of original purchases, and police report to substantiate larcenous act resulting in loss of his work material immediately prior to working his weekend job.  Mr. Doe was using limited material he backed up to protect him in the event of a B&E.



What the heck would be used to establish actual compensatory damages owed to Plaintiff during a penalty phase given such a case ?
.
.
.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

You guys are way over my head on this discussion however, I found this site.
http://www.karaokeantipiracyagency.com/faq.html
It may have some answers or it my confuse everyone even more.
I own about 500 CDG's. I have maybe stupidily so ,never made a backup copy of any of them. If I have a particular favorite and it gets damaged, I just by another.
So far I have only 'lost" one disc. Amazingly enough and this sounds nuts but plain ole peanut butter will remove lots of scratches. Just rub it in and clean it off.
You guys may have already seen the aforementioned website.
Blue

_________________
The main difference between monkeys and man..............
Thumbs

Where did I ever state commercial use.  I stated in certain circumstances works may be copied, ie by schools, libraries, and other such institutes as mentioned in the Copyright Act.

As to the case where the discs are stolen, that is ludicris.  I can see a mechanic or tradesperson or a cabbie or anyone else whose tools of the trade are stolen going back to the place they purchased their items and get free replacements.  You know what they would be told.  So sad, too bad.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

KAPA IS Sound Choice - it's their antipiracy division.  Very old news here, the only busts they successfully got done were again (actual penalty from what I understood was they had to sign a contract that they could never make/use a copy again & had to purchase all original discs), the multiriggers & sellers of copied material - not a computer user that bought all their own discs then transferred to the computer for playback instead of the discs.  Also the last bust was over 4 years ago.  The ONLY new news is about the gal making & selling hard drives on ebay.  http://www.karaokeantipiracyagency.com/news.html#7 & I really doubt KAPA had anything to do with that.
Just like SPIN used to be, originally started by Sound Choice as well, forgot the reason they broke off & started KAPA.  Again, a couple of busts relating to multiriggers & sellers - not the 1:1 ratio computer user.

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