Karaoke Forums

Where under "Fair Use Exception" does it state no "Commercial Use" case will be given consideration ?  Where does "Fair Use Exception" preclude *ALL* aspects of "Commercial Use" Tim ? Where do you see a term "Never" ?   Just because it states *Educational purposes* are more often exempt from Copyright Violation even THEY are subject to specific limitation.  No Grey would mean Fair Use exception NEVER applies to ANY aspects regarding Commercial application .   Can you cite me where this is stated ?  

How I read this is,  that in order to make a determination, cases must be tried CASE by CASE, and specifics must be considered (commercial cases granted, the current law is stricter regarding)



"May be more likely to qualify as fair use" indicates Commercial use is not precluded.  It's subject to stringent scrutiny.  At least this is how I interpret this.

You may be correct, I just don't see when reading the current phrasing *absolutes*.  If I'm incorrect that's fine,  I've learned something new.  That's what this is all about..

Where you see this is black or white,  I don't read the phrasing as such.

University of California,  Copyright Law, explanation of "Fair Use Exception"


BOTH applications are subject to certain criteria in order to make a determination !
As I understand this Tim, this means a Court looking at Individual Cases, will take into consideration "Reasonable" and "Intent".  This is *subjective*.

"Fair Use" DOES in fact supercede Copyright holder rights. Beit Educational or certain aspects of Commercial.

.
.

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

First, I would like to exclude Timberlea from the following rant as Timberlea seems to be the only one here who understands law and consequences and that life is not always fair. Timberlea, we don't know who you are and we love you!! I formerly exclude and excuse you from my tirade!
(And, as a side note to, I think it was Knightshow, I am a dudette, not a dude.)

That being said...to the rest of you...

I want to live in YOUR world!! In MY world, I don't get to pick and choose the laws I follow. I have to follow all of them or face the consequences. Let me tell you a fun little side story. And this is a TRUE story:

We bought a house in 2001. One of the MAIN reasons we bought it, above some of the other homes we looked at, was because it had a 120ft. driveway that ended right at the back door with 6ft. privacy fences on both sides of the property. We thought this was great so we could load in each night without all of the neighbors and everyone seeing our equipment. Just safer, we thought. So...three years go by and we are very happy in our new home. Then they decide to do a "Neighborhood Beautification Project" and WE get a citation. We are told that our driveway was not put in when the house was originally built (in 1920!!!) and that we can no longer pull up to our backdoor. We can park in back but must stay at the back 12ft. of our property.

When the city worker was handing out citations that day, she had a policeman with her in case anyone had a problem with her citations. (Mind you, the penalty for disobeying the citation is up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine for each day that we are parked in the wrong place) I, of course, had a problem with the citation as we had been parking there for three years and had pictures of the property from the auditor's web site taken two years before we purchased the house and the driveway was there then too. So, I said to the policeman, "You mean you are going to arrest me if I park in MY OWN driveway, but no one is doing a thing about the crackhouse that's been across the street for a year?" And the policeman replied, "Oh...you mean the one on the corner? (At which point, I think my mouth hit the ground!) Yes, we know about that." Then he stated that, yes, they WOULD arrest me if I didn't stop parking in MY driveway!! I no longer park in my driveway...and the crackhouse is still there. Cheers to justice!

BUT...if I lived in YOUR world, I could just decide that the law is antiquated, stupid and unfair (I pay property taxes and income taxes and I keep the driveway paved and who cares if they didn't think of a driveway back in 1920??!! It's a stupid law and it's unfair) and park wherever I want on MY property and they shouldn't be able to do anything to me. And...while I am in YOUR world, I don't think I have enough money so I think I should be able to go into a bank and demand they give me money as they have lots of it. I think the law about bank robbery is stupid and I am sure I could find one or more web gurus to back me up on that if I looked hard enough. And I could probably find a loophole or two that, if interpreted by a moron, would actually make it LEGAL for me to rob that bank. AND...my van is getting old and worn because I USE it, so I think I should be able to get a new one for free from the dealer.YOUR world must be WONDERFUL!!!

OH...also, in MY world, unfortunately, we do not have all of the honest people you have in YOUR world. How nice it would be to be able to recognize honest people just by LOOKING at them or knowing that they are honest because they TELL you they are honest. I mean...to never have a reason to spend money actually investigating things because the person you suspected SAID they were honest, so they MUST be!!! Oh! Happy, happy day!!! What a WONDERFUL world you live in!!!

Okay...now come back to MY world. Here in the REAL world, only and IDIOT would believe a PC KJ is legit without checking it out. You guys have almost ALL said it yourselves...you KNOW there are PC KJ's in YOUR area who are NOT legit and you want the "manus" to go after THEM and leave YOU alone. So...ummm...just how stupid would one have to be to do that? Don't you think that the KJ's that YOU don't trust are going to say that THEY are also legit? DUH!!!!

And my next point...we were approached by a friend when downloading FIRST became and option and he said he would put all of our discs into a laptop, etc. I told him to let me look into it and I started doing research. It IS illegal. No matter how you slice it, it is not a case-by-case-grey-area-within-the-spirit issue. The law is the law. All of the points you've all brought up PROVE it is the law but you choose to read other things into it. Certain parts of law may be open to a court's interpretation. But, "fair use" is specific and, if you ACTUALLY READ it, very clear as to what IS and is NOT allowed. Below is, what SHOULD be, an idiot-proof interpretation of the "fair use" provision of the U.S. Copyright Laws.

"Fair use" does NOT include karaoke (or DJ's for that matter). Thank you...good night..no..kidding..read on.

The following paragraph comes right from the Copyright web site...NOT Sound Choice, NOT Stellar Records:

Section 107 (Of the U.S. Copyright Law) contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Let's break this down:
FIRST off, once you are trying to rely on "fair use" to save your butt, you have, obviously, already violated the copyright. "Fair use" is to determine if you've violated it in a way that opens you up to a lawsuit. You copied copyrighted material WITHOUT permission from the copyright holder. You HAVE violated their copyright. PERIOD. The court will use "fair use" to determine if they tell you to stop, allow you to continue or throw you in jail.

SECONDLY, the reason they list CRITISISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING, SCHOLARSHIP AND RESEARCH is to give you an IDEA (dare I say...a CLUE) that THESE are the types of things that would fall under "FAIR USE." Does ANYONE see KARAOKE or anything that MIGHT be mistaken for karaoke or one of it's uses at shows in that list?? Now, I will admit that karaoke TAKES its fair share of criticism as do some of the singers, but THEY are talking about USING karaoke AS a criticism...like...say you have a company called MELODIC DECISION and you have a company called TART ALABAMA TAN (so as NOT to name ACTUAL "manus") You can, TO EDUCATE or REPORT FOR NEWS, etc., put PART of a MELODIC DECISION song into your computer and PART of a TART ALABAMA TAN song into your computer and explain why MELODIC DECISION is better than TART ALABAMA TAN. Or you can use these clips to explain karaoke to someone who doesn't know what it is. OR even use the clips to criticize karaoke as an industry. Did you think they listed THOSE particular criteria for fun?? Again, DUH!! They listed them so you would understand "pretty much" what they meant without them having to type a 30 page explanation.

Okay...on with the "determining factors."
POINT #1 - the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Now, admittedly, this COULD have been worded for morons, but they decided to word it so a person of average intelligence would understand it, so they did it the way they did it. This point means that first they have to determine if what YOU are doing is for commercial purposes ... hmmmm... that would be a definite DUH. Now, I know some of you will claim that you run your shows out of the goodness of your heart...yeah...right. Okay...say you DO. Well...then I guess you live in a place where the bars don't charge money for their drinks and snacks, etc., right?? Because, even if YOU aren't making any money, money IS being made during your show. No matter how you slice it, it comes up COMMERCIAL. Now...whether it states it in THAT particular explanation of "fair use" or not, what they are saying is that once they determine that you ARE doing it for commercial gain, they will slap you with a felony because in the body of the copyright laws, it CLEARLY states in a couple of places that "fair use" only applies to NON-COMMERCIAL VENTURES. The determination is just to clarify the offense. If the copyrighted material is being used NON-COMMERCIALLY, then they will go on to determine if it breaks any OTHER parts of the law.

POINT #2 will have to continue in my next post as I am nearing 10,000 words. Sorry. Golly...even I am tired of reading...but it's important and poignant and I just can't stop reading!!!!

....continued from previous post...

POINT #2 the nature of the copyrighted work; If you rip a news video into your computer for one of the earlier stated purposes, (criticism, education, etc.) they will look at the news video and probably, but NOT definitely, decide that it is something that can be used for those purposes which ARE covered by "fair use". If you, however, rip 100,000 songs into your computer, they will determine that you are a COPYRIGHT INFRINGER. Unless you intend somehow to criticize each and every song in your list or teach it to your customers for free or...well...you get the picture. But, since we all know that we are not stupid enough to do this or ANY job for free, what you are doing is COMMERCIAL, so you'd already be in trouble.

POINT #3 -amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; I am going to guess that you have ripped entire songs into your computers, so YOU BROKE THE LAW. You MIGHT have squeaked by with a smaller fine or something had you only ripped little PORTIONS of songs into your computer for shows, but then you probably wouldn't have any shows because people want to sing the whole song. DUH, again.

AND POINT #4 - the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Okay....this SHOULD be a no-brainer, but I will break it down anyway, just in case. The woman from Minnesota is a very bad person and did a very bad thing and HER effect on the market was HUGE. Agreed? She should be drawn and quartered and roped and tied and tarred and feathered and salt and peppered. Right...okay...I am with you on that. BUT... If I buy Sound Choice 8967 and I use it at shows, and it gets scratched to the point of no repair and I send Sound Choice the disc and $5.95, they send me a new one!! Now..admittedly, SC only made a weenie amount of money which won't even pay the guy putting my disc in a box, but they are entitled to that money and they are entitled to the piece of mind that there is only ONE copy of that particular disc out there as I sent them my scratched one.

Okay...so...same scenario, but 8967 goes out of print. Hmmmm...what to do, what to do...Give this a moment of thought...sometimes companies stop making things. Who knew??? I used up the last of my favorite perfume and the company doesn't make it anymore. I had to find a comparable replacement perfume. I don't like it as much, but I like to smell good. My loss. Oh well...so sad...too bad. So...my friend likes to sing Black Horse And Cherry Tree. AND, furthermore, she likes the SOUND CHOICE version of it. I would feel bad about replacing it with an inferior version, but I am running a business and, as such, I MUST FOLLOW THE LAWS GOVERNING MY BUSINESS. Therefore, I would have to get a different version of the song (from TART ALABAMA TAN, perhaps) and HOPE that my friend would understand when I explain the law to her. SO...if I have to buy a DIFFERENT disc, I have actually put money INTO the industry. TART ALABAMA TAN can now afford to make more discs. SOUND CHOICE can make more discs and everyone is happy because we have a large selection and it can continue to grow. EVERY TIME you rip a song into your computer, you have cost the industry money and therefore caused an effect on the market and the value of the copyrighted work and you did it FOR COMMERCIAL USE! DUH, again!

Okay...as for IP Justice...
Are you people serious??? Did you people REALLY read what they were saying??
First off, in the part about the "Pretty Woman" parody...that has NOTHING to do with KJ's or KARAOKE. Parody has almost ALWAYS been found exempt from copyright laws because you are not singing the same song. Using THAT as karaoke case law is absurd to say the least and the one about digital pictures has exactly WHAT to do with karaoke? And maybe no one else noticed that throughout IP's explanation of why ripping the discs to computer MIGHT be legal and part of "fair use," they continually used phrases like, "a court would be UNLIKELY to rule a KJ is infringing on copyright " and "would PROBABLY be found to be fair use." I don't know about the rest of you, but, if I am looking at a $250,000 fine (and you will please note that the fine has gone up not down, meaning that the law is probably getting stricter, not more lenient) I want them to give me absolutes. As in "a court WOULD DEFINITELY NOT RULE that a KJ is infringing on the copyright and WILL DEFINITELY be found to be fair use."

All of the cases they stated had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with karaoke and they don't even believe enough in what they are saying to back it with a definite statement. Add to that the weird point they make, but do not explain, about a KJ waiving his rights by signing a contract or something....I can sign all the contracts I want and it doesn't make it legal for me to download, upload, copy or rip Sound Choice's music.

Going to their point about a bar being in trouble only if they DON'T know the KJ is using illegal discs...Didn't IP just say the discs or computers MIGHT NOT be illegal??? Anyway, if a bar owner doesn't check out who they are hiring, then they deserve the hit and ignorance is NEVER and excuse for breaking the law. I'm sorry officer...I didn't KNOW shooting people was a crime....I'm sorry Judge, I didn't KNOW that money in the vault wasn't mine. Also, the point they make about being limited to the number of discs we can carry??? I can carry a van full of discs if need be and I can rent, buy or borrow another van or truck if I need to. And THESE are the people you are risking your money, businesses and freedom on? You are all invited to MY world. In MY world, when the busts all go down, I will be raking in the bucks with my ORIGINAL discs and I will buy you all a drink. And Timberlea...I'd buy you a drink as well, but you will probably be running a whole bunch of new shows in your area and won't have time for a vacation. Sorry. Still love you!!

All that being said, I would imagine, although what you are all doing IS a crime, Sound Choice and Stellar records ARE just trying to catch the KJ's who are multi-rigging and downloading illegally and all that. If they raid your show and you show them that you only have as many songs in your computer as you have discs to back them up, they will probably thank you and go to the next bar. You will note that I said PROBABLY. If it were ME that lost the millions of dollars these "manus" have lost because of ALL of the different copyright infringements, minor, major or "within the spirit," I would prosecute EVERYONE for ANY infringement I could sue them for. IP said that suing their customers will put "manus" out of business. I disagree. There are plenty of completely legal KJ's to keep them in business and new ones popping out of the woodwork every day. If all of the legal ones and all of the new ones keep buying discs, they will more than make up for the loss of business if the 1:1 computer KJ's stop buying discs. Because YOU will always only buy just ONE of each disc (never a replacement) and then keep ripping it into your hard drive. And they weren't making any money on the totally illegal KJ's anyway, so no loss there.

Just a few points: Knightshow- The blouse analogy, which SHOULD have clued you that I was a female and not a "dude," IS relevant. If I want the EXACT same blouse of the EXACT same quality, I cannot make it out of cheaper material or it would be an inferior blouse. Now, you aren't saying you use inferior discs at your shows are you?? And, if I remember right, you said I can even put the brand name on it. NOPE...that would ALSO be illegal and a copyright infringement of a different type. (Look on the net for ALL of the copyright infringements concerning Prada and Gucci, etc. And note that just OWNING one of the knock-offs is a felony.)

WIll continue and finish (I swear!!!) in the NEXT post...

...final continuation...cross my heart!!!!

And, I am wondering if, as you all say, you HAVE the original discs stored away for safe keeping, why would you completely scrap your sizeable investments and quit doing shows? You said it was hard to find CD&G players. There are still bunches and bunches of CD&G players on the market. Besides...what is it you are doing to your CD&G players that they need replaced that often? We have three systems. One system has been used every night (except Christmases and the occasional poorly scheduled OSU football game -GO BUCKS!! and a four month period when we only had three shows...that's explained in a minute) for eleven years straight and we are STILL using our original CD&G player, original amp, original main speakers (An unfortunate beer incident at Punk Rock Karaoke caused us to have to get new monitor speakers about 6 years ago) and we still have our original TV but I let my son use it in his room and I bought a new one because I wanted to. Our other system has everything original except the CD&G player because we HAD to get one that played VCD's because of ONE stupid UBest disc that had ONE stupid song that ONE very nice (cough, cough grrrr) singer couldn't live without. But THAT was 12 years ago and that system runs every weekend and two other days a week and has for over 13 years. Our third system has been run very lightly as we bought it right around the time everyone started downloading, but it still has all it's original components and has been running fine for 8 years. The ONLY glitchy screens we get are from Pocket Songs which we hardly ever use and a professional laser cleaning clears them up for about  six months anyway. So why is everyone so worried about CD&G players?

Copyright Infringement is illegal. What you are doing IS copyright infringement. It's the LAW. Love it, hate it, think it isn't fair, but it's there and that's that! The law is what keeps us from total chaos. AND...is it worth giving up all of the time and money you've invested in your discs just to not have to follow that law?? You can all quit the business...that's your right, but I can guarantee that there will be some "newbie" stepping in to take your place the next week and he/she will not mind lugging all his/her discs to your old show and charging twice as much as you could because the market will no longer be saturated with illegal companies. I am not sure what point you are trying to prove by quitting, but all you will prove is that you aren't a very good business person.

We have to compete with a 12 rig company, all on computer, who's KJ's have TOLD us are all illegal except for HALF of one system (half the DISCS in ONE system are legal...ALL of the computers are ILLEGAL) and we still do alright. We lose shows to them, but we usually get them back. And whenever they lose shows, it's to us. I just find it hard to believe anyone would walk away from that much of an investment if they COULD do the same job legally.

Once again, part of doing business is FOLLOWING THE LAWS THAT GOVERN THAT BUSINESS. You don't get to pick them, you don't have to like them, and, unfortunately, it will probably take more than our lifetime to change them. Sound Choice and Stellar are NOT the ones telling you how to run your business. The U.S. Copyright Laws are telling you how to run your business. Sound Choice and Stellar are just reaping the rewards of all their hard work. I find it funny that everyone goes on and on about how great Sound Choice is and then they turn around an threaten to boycott them. Go ahead, boycott, but take all of the Stellar Record songs and the Sound Choice songs OUT of your computers and see just how long you keep your shows. And, FYI...talk to Chartbuster about this issue. When I talked with them, they said they plan to join with the other two. So you would have to remove your Chartbusters, too. (part of a boycott is not using the product or service) Wow...remind me to NEVER go to one of those shows. It would be like my worst karaoke nightmare!!!

I am a karaoke hostess. I run a relatively successful karaoke company. It's the best job I've ever had with the best customers in the world. The customers alone make it worth lugging all the discs to the shows. At one point, we were down to three shows a week because of underbidders and infringers, etc. The customers kept us coming back instead of scrapping it all and getting "real jobs." If gas prices get any higher, I will hook a trailer to a tandem bike and we will cycle our systems to the shows if there is just ONE customer waiting there to sing us a song. THAT is what karaoke is to me and that is what it SHOULD be for all of you. Get some really cool video games and use your fancy computers for those until there is a LEGAL way to use it for shows. Even Sound Choice says they are TRYING to come up with a way to make computer karaoke legal. But it needs to be legal and unable to be cheated and hacked so people can make an HONEST living at it. If I did this for fun, I would say, "Sure!! Download everything you can find!" But we do this for a living...it's just a BONUS that it's fun. Go ahead and quit, but remember, anyone still in the business will take your shows and when a way is found to make computer karaoke legal, they will be two steps ahead of you. THEY will have up to date selections to put into their new computers, YOUR selection will end in 2007 and THEY will have YOUR shows and probably won't give them back.  YOU will be the "newbie" and it takes a long time and a lot more money to play catch up. Just a thought.

Sorry this was so long winded, but it all needed to be said. Have a better than great day!! Let the misinterpretations and  rationalizing commence!!

Holy Hanna! What a mouthful! !

First of all, I NEVER asked any manu to TRUST ME per se. What I said is "sure, investigate me... and I'll show you I'm 1:1" I think in today's world EVERYONE that's PC based SHOULD hold themselves up to a scrutiny by them. In fact, I TOTALLY support this. THAT POINT was brought up by myself in trying to WORK WITH the manus. But they find it easier to just try and convict all users, even loyal purchasers that aren't trying to rip them off. As for your point about the $5.95, even BC himself said that's not even 1 tenth of one percentage of their business model, so they don't even include it in their analysis of costs of discs. WHY? Because MOST KJs take good care of their investment. I do too, but even then, with the 8125 I bought as well as 8148, Pioneer, and other discontinued items, they CAN'T be replaced... ever!

bunches and bunches of cdg players, huh?

Look, the market for the players is dwindling. The trusted JVCs are gone... you can't get them back. If one goes south (and one of my two did), you're out a player. The only thing I could do is try like blazes to become a technician and learn to fix them, if I could get the schematics and available parts from jvc.

THe only ones left are reconditioned (good) players, voco-crrap (my opinion, but MANY pro hosts feel this way about them), and the untried NEO players (heard several bad things about them so far), and the super cdg, which are both DVD type players that recognize their own media first, and cd (cdg too) second, vcd third, etc... the load times on these are horrendous...

Like your perfume comment... too bad, so sad. Yes, the players are dying out, and are dwindling. SC sells a player on their site now (they've always had partnerships with some companies), but for now, there's no reality that those players will be long supported. The computer means is tried, and true, and lived it's test. If something breaks, I CAN and WILL fix it. Not so on the cdg players!

Neither SC nor Stellar tell us which cdgs will suddenly go out of print. So do what they say and play the discs, and when it comes time to replace a scratched disc, then you can't. Oh by the way, that's wonderful customer service... skipping discs to the point where you have to tell the customer that the sone is unavailable until you get it back. With a PC... gee whiz, the material doesn't get damaged like that!

And keep on going on and on about my quitting and other shows taking over. You're not preaching anything that I don't know about. Of COURSE someone else took the shows! DUH!! The whole point of when I PERSONALLY quit the commercial side of this is I'd RELOCATED ACROSS THE COUNTRY... so the shows were over. I was wanting to pick things back up here in my old hometown, but my work schedule doesn't permit it yet... so I'd already been semi-retired.

SC and Stellar's decision just made it all the way.

Glad you at least acknowledge how confining YOUR world is.  I prefer to live in an amenable world. I can discern fact from phobic fantasy, and realize that those of you imprisoned by clairvoyance and self-acclaimed legal-expertise do in fact end up spending excessive sums of money fearing unfounded consequence.  Of course if YOU folks wish to pontificate law that has yet to be established and feign knowing more than our current court systems you have such a right.  I have a right to laugh at you know-it-alls too of course .  Especially since I'd rather believe it is *I* that knows it all.  That aside,  your explanation regarding "commerical use" is not factual.

University of Minnesota.   -Analysis of "Fair Use" determination-   Section 1 or 4
Although educational use in and of itself will not assure that your use is a fair use, by the same token not every commercial use will fail as a fair use.


Glad I live in my world too !

Copyright:  What makes a use "Fair"

Fair use can raise the most difficult and controversial issues in Copyright law.
Users often wish there were clear rules to establish exactly when a use is fair
and when it is not. The ambiguity of the Fair Use Doctrine is also its strength
because it allows courts to apply fair use to new and completely unanticipated
use of copyrighted works.
======================================================
Tufts University
Fair Use on Copyrighted materials.

     Emergency copying to replace purchased copies that for ANY reason are not
available for an imminent performance, provided purchased replacement copies
shall be substituted in due course is permissible without having secured prior permission.


     Seriously,  If we are to discuss this area maturely PLEASE cite actual info, and
leave out unfounded opinion where there's clearly ambiguity.  This is a VERY complicated area, and there's no room for a lay-persons all or none interpretation of this area of law.

University of MN    -See following post regarding detail and determination-
The fair use provision may be applied to the use of all copyrighted works, even those in digital form. To determine whether any particular use is a fair use, you should conduct a case-by-case analysis

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

Matt there are many items no longer available today.  That's life.  You may have to change things a bit but by not haing them anymore isn't really going to change your life.  If you're afraid of losing or damaging a disc, then put it in platic and store it like "Action Comics #1" and keep it as a collector's item, but do not take it out and use it.

I live in Eastern Canada and I could probably buy at least 100 players that play CDGs.  In fact we use them in our shows.  They play pretty well everything and have a key changer (Electrohomes, if anyone is interested).  I will grant they are slightly slower than the Pioneer (they were the best) but for about $100 they're great machine.  Just because Pioneer and JVC are dwindling or gone, doesn't mean there's no replacements by other manufacturers out there.  In fact my Electrohome is more versitile because it plays more formats.  We had to get one because the Pioneer didn't play other formats.

Matt now your changing your statement on why you quit.  At the beginning you said it was because of SC and Stellar's stance.  You never said it was because of your new work schedule in your new location.  You said you retired because of the stancce and will stay that way because you couldn't protect your investment and didn't want to lug around discs.  Now you're saying your semi-retired.  What does that mean.  That you only lug around half your discs.  You keep trying to make yourself sound like a martyr, you're not.  You and others are trying to skirt things by trying to sneak into the backdoor.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

University of Minnesota.

Copyright and determination regarding "Fair Use"

The statutory language of Fair Use (Section 107) is simple and seems clear, but it is intentionally vague and can be confusing. Nonetheless, conducting a four-factor fair use analysis is critical to any good faith fair use assertion. Without careful consideration of each of the factors you may inadvertently overstep the boundaries of fair use or you may miss opportunities the statute provides. The challenge in your analysis is to arrive at a conclusion you're comfortable with and that you believe is fair to all interested parties. Remember, the name of Section 107 is "fair use."

Because there are no bright line markers that define it, you must rely on your good sense and an "equitable rule of reason" to guide you to the safe harbors fair use can provide, or to seek permissions when your analysis leans in that direction. Balancing the four factors results in an opinion about an uncertain matter. Your opinion may differ from that of others. The strength of any fair use assertion results more from a careful assessment of the facts surrounding each case and an honest consideration of the legitimate interests of users and owners alike than from any formula devised to arrive at a "right" answer to the question at hand.


Understanding the Four Factors of Fair Use

The fair use provision may be applied to the use of all copyrighted works, even those in digital form. To determine whether any particular use is a fair use, you should conduct a case-by-case analysis based on the factors below.

First Factor: Purpose and Character of the Use

Nonprofit, educational, and personal uses are generally favored fair uses while commercial uses are less likely to be deemed fair use. Although educational use in and of itself will not assure that your use is a fair use, by the same token not every commercial use will fail as a fair use. Transformative uses, uses that result in the creation of a new work, with a new purpose and different character are favored as fair uses over uses that merely reproduce an original work. The more transformative a particular use is the less significant the other factors will be as they weigh against fair use.

Second Factor: The Nature of the Copyrighted Work

Factual works, published works and scientific articles that are factual in nature are more likely to be considered available for fair use than are creative, imaginative, artistic, or unpublished works. Additionally certain "consumable" works, e.g. workbooks and standardized tests are not likely to be considered available for fair use.

Third Factor: Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used

The statute gives no bright line indication concerning how much of a work may be used under fair use but the implication is that use of the whole work is less likely to be considered a fair use. Thus, use of only a small portion of a work is favored. However in some circumstance e.g. uses like research, classroom use, personal use that already weigh in favor of fair use, you may use more of a work. In fact in such cases use of the entire work may be appropriate and allowable as a fair use if using that much is required to accomplish your purpose. A commercial use of the same material in the same amount could weigh heavily against fair use. Amount and substantiality is also a qualitative measure and at times use of even a small portion of a work may be considered too much to qualify as a fair use if that portion used is considered to be the "heart of the work."

Fourth Factor: Effect on the Potential Market for or Value of the Work

Generally the consideration for this factor is whether or not there is some economic harm to the owner of the copyright as a result of your use. Courts have established the availability of permissions or licenses as one of the potential values for copyrighted works. This factor alone, however, cannot determine whether or not a use is fair. Positioned as the fourth factor it is a bit easier to consider market effects. If the first three factors weigh in favor of fair use then market harm should carry less weight even when considering the permissions market, since the market is for permissions that are required. Conversely, if the first three factors are tipping the balance in favor of permission then market harm will carry more weight in the balancing of the factors.

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

All this vigilance regarding "It is ILLEGAL to back up your work for emergency purposes" seems ludicrous to me.   It's your money though.  Why not spend a few hundred dollars, and consult with a Copyright Atty, rather than an additional 20K to back up a library fearing a penalty that has yet to be established. Again "reason" and "intent" are considered. Extent of damage to Copyright holder is also a factor.

ADDED IN:

Getting back to the original post.

I doubt many aren't in agreement that an Ebay seller selling several hundred thousand copied CD-G's (well over a million dollars) IS NOT the same type of "commercial" situation as the KJ just wishing to run his show, an individual that has no intent on gaining additional income from his backup copies but must resort to them because this is a reasonable means of continuing to work his job after his originals were recently stolen. "Commercial Use" must be broken down and analyzed case by case. There's NO similarity. Not all commericial apps fall into the same category.

It clearly states "case by case" analysis regarding all events prosecuted.

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

Nah,  I never stated "fair use" is THAT diverse  :shock:

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

You folks might also be interested in reading "The Audio Home Recording Act" of 1992, it starts on page 4 and although pretty dry reading, this is the only way to understand how intricate certain things are.

http://law.wustl.edu/Journal/13/York.pdf

(I wonder if this has been amended over the past few years)


The law appears to rule toughest on "pirating".  The law *usually* considers pirating "illegal copying AND distribution of copyright protected material".

(I don't know this as fact, I'm interpretting my understanding of cases where the court systems will prosecute to fullest extent of the law, or "throw the book" at the Defendant.  As in the case of the OP ).  Even THESE cases however MUST be tried individually and will weigh in ALL factors.  It's ALWAYS case by case.

So some may wish to assume guilty until the court proves otherwise.

But I'll do as I please keeping my actions within the realm of "Good Faith", applying "reasonable judgement", keeping in mind "intent", and I'll READ up on this stuff, of course also consulting a Copyright Atty (who might or might not have a clue) can save money as well.  

It's the court that decides who's guilty in these cases. These laws are designed to allow the court A LOT of descretion.   Not sidewalk judges !

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

Firstly, I would like to say that I respect Revenge Entertainment's opinion, as I respect the opinions of all others on this forum.  However I do NOT respect the slanderous comments that she makes by calling anyone that has an opinion which differs from hers as morons or dumb.  That is uncalled for and demonstrates a level of immaturity unfitting for such forums.

While the word karaoke is not used, what IS used is the phrase COPYRIGHTED WORK:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —


Can anybody tell me that a karaoke disc is NOT a copyrighted work?  If it weren't then we wouldn't be having this conversation!

This is just one of the many faults I find in her argument.  One of the others is her comment about the irrelevance of certain case law.  Parodies of songs are clearly covered in copyright law as it clearly states that permission is required from the author in order to change lyrics. So, that case is relevent to the purpose of demonstrating that "fair use" can apply to copyrighted works used for commercial purposes.

Yes, I agree that  "Fair Use 38" clearly states that the copying of protected works for the purposes listed is not an infringement of copyright.  But that is an inclusive list, not an exclusive one.  The last sentence expands on this:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

In other words if, IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE, the use is clearly not included in the list of purposes, then the four factors must be used to determine whether the case is not an infringement.

There's a WHOLE section of this called "Parody Law".  That's a whole thesis within itself Murray. Loads of arguments between Plaintiff and Court system when the court makes a di minimus ruling (basically meaning the courts don't like bothering with trite, or small stuff), and the Plaintiff get's all disgruntled.

Case law DOES serve a purpose,  and when there isn't particular case law, people end up on what often seems like a wild goose chase.  Here's an example.  If you think this is cut and dry meaning "if you obtained a legal copy of copyrighted music  you are free to copy at home for personal use".  Reading part of it will certainly make it appear as such.  There are ALWAYS conditions and exceptions.  Case law makes this much easier on future episodes but things are ALWAYS being amended and modified so nothing is carved in stone in these areas of civil law. So you must dig in and look up this particular area.  See what it really says.


So I'll go dig up supra note 24  
17 U.S.C 1001-1010

and post it later.  (after I do something fun like pig-out)

*Just my own opinion (for what little it matters)*
This stuff becomes so rhetorical, and subjective that foundation principles within law do very little.  Without prior cases in an area of law, somebody will be paying with the shirt off've their back in hopes of getting something transient established, which will only evolve into a different law shortly down the road:( .  Which is again, why there are so few cases to begin with in certain specific areas.  Few people (as stated a few weeks back) have the disposable income to pursue this, and the Courts and Atty's really aren't interested in seeing them pursued. Where's THEIR money ?  Realistically, how drastic is "backing up your library" in comparison to other cases a court must take time for, and Atty's must get paid for ?  These wouldn't be actual superior court cases anyway,  they'd be small claims court cases, and for a large business to file such a suit and file subpoena, pay their atty for his time would benefit them HOW?    You need to think of these cases in dollars, that's how they end up getting settled.  You SUE for money.  Not priniciple, that's a luxury..   If a KJ happened to be a millionaire and wished to challenge a copyright holder on principle, or challenge any area of copyright law as it currently stands on principle what would be the monetary returns to this person filing ?  He'd never recoop his money. So, unless somebody in legislature takes a personal interest in a specific case, it's a long haul.  See how this works ?   It makes sense.  Certain areas are written up to appear heavier handed than they are,  this serves an obvious purpose, yet when the court has an exceptional amount of discretion, and judgement can only take place on a "case by case" basis you aren't going to see a case where JQ KJ got off the hook (when prosecuted) for backing up his library, likely because in actuality a Plaintiff or Court stands little to gain by prosecuting such a case, unless the purpose is to make a sacrificial lamb out've a person via example. Still, what Atty would wish to take this, and what would a business have to gain by paying out for court time/costs in such a case ?  UNLESS the person is pirating millions of dollars worth of CD-G's.   The KJ isn't overtly robbing anybody by trying to protect his assets, and since there's negligible monetary loss to a Copyright holder when the KJ does so, the Copyright holder (assuming he finds out about small infractions and can give a damn) stands what to gain by prosecuting a small guy who has little to pay out ?  (when evidence is only established case by case, what reference does a business even have that they can gain substantially, recooperate their expenses ?) There's no established case law to reference.  How can a business, or even copyright holder in certain instances feel confident in a particular case, that they will be awarded anything ?  How tough is it given such a case for a decent Atty for the defendant to just have the subpoena quashed (in the case of backup CD-G use)?  Assume the defendant in a petty case doesn't even show, and there's a default ruling in favor of the Plaintiff.  Ruling for what ?  No-answer, or appearance doesn't automatically indicate guilt.  How much MORE would this cost the business to pursue ?    Cases such as this are about monetary loss, and recovery, how else do you benefit by punishing a person assuming you are a plaintiff ?  Throwing a small businessman in jail for what ?  Even if the burdon of proof lies on the defendant in such cases,  what type of restitution could the copyright holder reasonably ask for prosecuting a small guy with a "backed up my investment in the case of theft" defense ?   Unless damages are well over a specific sum,  it doesn't pay to prosecute with so much ambiguity.   Similarly, this is why many retailers don't prosecute for petty larceny.  Does this justify breaking laws ?  Nope,  I never stated or condoned that.  I certainly WON'T pay 40K for a 20K library UNLESS an Atty (who is familiar with this particular area of the law) tells me I need to.  Seems reasonable to ASK an Atty what you should do.  The response MIGHT have something to do with frequency of your work, certain civil codes in your area, size of venue, hours of operation, type of venue,  actual income by such use, size of your library, WHO KNOWS.  Things seem to get THAT specific when ALL factors are weighed case by case.  (JMO)  


Isn't it reasonable to assume, IF in fact this were a significant crime (to back up libraries) there would be case law, and tangible evidence of "the busted KJ" since this would've in fact been prosecuted and compensatory damages established would be something we could reference based upon something tangible ?   Why isn't there currently any tangible reference ? There are A LOT of CD-G's out there.

While it's possible, It seems a stretch to believe a high percentage actually pay double for an extensive library (meaning two or more purchased originals of each CD-G simultaneously to protect themselves in cases of theft).  How many have that type of money ?  I'm sure some do.  I doubt as many as it appears from these arguments do, but that too is guessing, not specific finger pointing.  Given the cost of a library, and the cost of living HOW many have that additional amount at any given time ?

Part of "grey" area is based on what I've read and how I interpret certain areas of this.  Part of "grey" is also based on the fact that a Court WILL weigh all factors which DOES NOT exclude "Intent", "Reasonable accomodation", Good Faith aspects, and all areas, if a person isn't guilty of pirating, or intent to defraud a copyright holder, why worry about reprisal ? If I don't believe I'm guilty, I can't spend my whole life fearing the knock on the door, worse things in life are going to happen this year alone.  My own feeling is that I also have a right to reasonable law without fearing reprisal assuming I don't believe I'm guilty.  Assuming I am,  I'll take what comes my way bending over like the man I am.

(Again these are just my thoughts, they aren't factual)  

In brief,  I honestly don't believe our court system is out to harm, or even wants to see a case involving the little guy just trying to make ends meet, buy doing something positive such as furnishing Karaoke OR ANY legitimate form of musicial entertainment at a small pub because there's a small technicality found such as "He was using a backup supply for emergency purposes only because he couldn't afford to double his library.   While people can be sadistic,  I think there are much bigger fish in the sea.  Especially considering theres a business person on Ebay receiving revenue on several hundred thousand pirated CD-G's, and others like her that are blatantly wrong, and where theft can be tangibly shown in dollar figures.

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

I'd need to look over this again Murray.  This is certainly not cut and dry, considering section 6 strictly adheres to sections 107 thru 122, 106A references 107, and depending on the date this was written if any portion of 106-122 refers to the 1998 Digital millennium Copyright Act (perhaps even if it does not directly reference the DMCA, but a newer area supercedes older written law that has yet to be amended), that takes turns too.  Remember "phonorecord" depending on how strict this sense of the term is, may indicate this pertains to analog duplication only, and between certain times there's the Jukebox act, DMCA, and lord knows how many seemingly extraneous areas that aren't truly extraneous once you start running around in this type circle where everything is in someway contingent on so many aspects.  This is another reason for such ambiguity, few have the time to study this.

When you just view this portion:


It doesn't appear that this can cover all aspects outside of the analog realm.  Reason being, we've learned that not *all* of the above cases are actually exempt from infringement  of copyright given above settings today. Illegal copying situations can also be found in all of the above cases.

This is why this can be such a pain in the butt to attempt to decypher.  LOL




It sure is copyrighted work.  It contains images and music, and I think (dunno) is subject to different laws.  Wasn't there some "Harry Fox licensing" that covered copies a few years back ??    I don't know about this area Murray.  But yes,  it certainly contains several forms of copyrighted work, so it's likely subject to a whole different set of circumstances that only complicates this and adds to the ambiguity. since it's VERY doubtful contents would be viewed in the limited terms of older music only CD law.

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

Slanderous comments? You might want to look that word up, Murrlyn. As for insulting, yeah, maybe, but maybe it was just one calling it as one sees it. If I wanted to insult you, I would have used different words. And, Murrlyn, your argument that supposedly proves one of the "many faults in" my argument actually proves EXACTLY what I was saying (on a couple of points, including  the "insulting" comments I made). What you copied and posted there was the actual text of the "fair use" part of copyright law and is just a more wordy version of what I used to explain my arguments. It states that it is not an infringement ONLY IF certain criteria are met. In the case of karaoke, those criteria are NOT met, so it IS an infringement when you copy it BECAUSE karaoke IS a copyrighted work. Thank you so much for proving my point and also for proving my point about the copyright laws. (no, I am not repeating myself and to those of you who understand what I mean by the last statement, thanks for getting it!)

AND, furthermore, in your SECOND point about particular cases...maybe you didn't read my post thoroughly. I explained ALL FOUR of the "ways to tell if it is fair use" quite clearly, and copying your karaoke music to your hard drive misses the boat on all four points, therefore, copying your discs would NOT be "fair use" and therefore, WOULD be an infringement. But, again, thank you for helping me prove my point and also helping me prove my point about copyright law.

Now...as for anyone whose opinion differs from mine...hmmm...that might be an argument if this was, indeed, MY opinion. The U.S. Copyright Law is not MY opinion, it is the law. And, I would not even have said anything about it, but this is something that I actually happen to know something about. I believe I mentioned that I had done a lot of research when my friend told me he could put all my discs into a laptop. Well...after all of my research, (much of which I mostly understood, but wasn't sure) I decided that, for my own protection and the protection of my business, I should probably ask a copyright attorney because they know about such things and MIGHT be able to break it down into layman's terms. I was right. He DID know all about it and he explained it to me. Most of what I've already told you is what he told me, but here's something I might not have mentioned loud enough for everyone to hear.

What you are doing (if you copy their discs for ANY REASON) IS, in no uncertain terms, an infringement on a "manu's" copyrights. However, you will not be prosecuted unless the "manu" (or one of the publishers, etc.,  attached to a particular song) CHOOSES to have you prosecuted. Now, just so everyone can follow. If Sound Choice (or, once again, any publishers who still hold an interest in a particular work) does not file charges against you, you will not be prosecuted. It is up to the copyright holder to bring charges and then for the prosecutors do their thing. So, as I have stated before, SC and Stellar are PROBABLY not going to press charges against someone merely protecting their investment. However, according to my $750.00-non-refundable-consulting-fee-lawyer, IF the "manus" decide to press charges for that also, they are well within their rights and they WILL win the case.

See you are all talking about the law not being right like it matters what you say. This is America...when was the last time anything that we said mattered. SC and Stellar are multi-million dollar companies with shareholders and all kinds of important muckety mucks and, because of the chance of frivolous lawsuits against anyone in this country with any money, these muckety mucks tend to not make a move without consulting...you guessed it....LAWYERS!!!!! And, before they sent out their Phoenix letters, they consulted these lawyers and the lawyers, obviously, told them two things that they felt obliged and, at least in Stellar's case, obligated to share with the good people of Arizona. 1. You are infringing on their copyrights and you need to stop or be prosecuted and 2. Now...this is a biggie...other people connected with the original song still have an interest in the copyrights and Stellar and SC and ALL of the other "manus" have NO RIGHT to give you permission to load their products into your computers.

Now, everyone keeps saying case law, case law, case law. Let me ask you all something...If Sound Choice and their millions of dollars decided to come after YOU and press charges, and they said,"We can go to court or you can stop what you are doing, pay your fine, and go use your discs as they were meant to be used," what would you do? Would you fight them? Better question, could you AFFORD to fight them for an extended period of time? Unless you are running a couple of hundred rigs and not paying any employees, I am going to guess that you would not be able to keep up a defense for very long. Not to mention, you would NOT be able to use the computer in question until the court case is over and since your originals would also be part of the evidence, you probably wouldn't be able to use THEM for the duration....I am going to guess that each and every one of us, if we are being honest, would hand over our computer, pay the fine and count our blessings that we weren't going to prison (prison, not jail...as it's a felony). Also, remember, if you lose, it could be $250,000.00 PER OFFENSE...meaning PER SONG. Okay...so where is the case law? It wouldn't show up. No one would be stupid enough to take it to court. You all know that what you are doing is illegal. You are all hoping that "fair use" will, somehow, bail you out. Sorry. Sound Choice and Stellar would never have sent those letters if there was a ghost of a chance that what you are doing is, in any way, legal.

The "manus" own the copyright. You infringed on the copyright. No matter what you THINK or try to rationalize, it's a crime. And it is really up to the "manus" how far THEY want to take it. If they want EVERYONE, regardless of how many rigs you have, to stop ripping it into computers, then that is their right. Which brings me to Steven Kaplan's unfortunate comment.
Steven Kaplan wrote: "The KJ isn't overtly robbing anybody by trying to protect his assets, and since there's negligible monetary loss to a Copyright holder when the KJ does so, the Copyright holder (assuming he finds out about small infractions and can give a gosh darn) stands what to gain by prosecuting a small guy who has little to pay out ?"

It would be so nice if this were true, but that is EXACTLY what you are doing (overtly robbing the "manus"). And that is EXACTLY why the "manus" are going to sacrifice your lamb. Let us delve into the loss of money, shall we? Let's say 2,000 KJs (just a drop in the bucket really, as there are 300+ in my city alone and I can't imagine the REAL number of KJs out there) buy ONE Sound Choice disc each. Now, 500 of those KJs are illegal multi-riggers and they burn the disc for, let's just say 3 illegal rigs. That ALONE is going to cost SC $26,985.00 (based on a $17.99 price for SC). Okay, now, the other 1,500 KJs only want to copy theirs to protect their investment. By copying the disc to computer or burning it onto a backup disc instead of purchasing a second copy, those 1,500 KJs cost SC ANOTHER $26,985.00 of lost sales. Okay...now, because computers don't always work the way we want them to, let's say 450 of those hard drives crash causing 450 KJs to re-rip that disc into their computer instead of buying another disc (which is what you would have done if you ruined an original disc. You'd buy another disc) which costs SC another $8095.50. Now...as I am sure NO ONE out there is running their shows with just ONE disc, let's get realistic and multiply those numbers by, oh...let's say 500 discs. Now, the KJs in question have cost Sound Choice $31,032,750.00. That would be over THIRTY MILLION reasons why they would DEFINITELY want some mutton for dinner. (and, yes...I know that distributors actually don't pay that much for SC, but close enough for this analogy and it is what WE pay, so it is what WE are costing the industry as a whole.)

Now, the sad part about all that math is that I am almost positive there are more than 2,000 KJs in the U.S. and I am just as positive that there are more than 500 multi-riggers out there. If you start calculating on a larger scale, the numbers are staggering and, suffice it to say, all of the "manus" have good reason to want computer KJs, illegal multi-riggers, and people using burned discs to stop. Steven Kaplan said NEGLIGIBLE MONETARY LOSS?? Honey...if that many millions is a "negligible amount" to you, can we get married??? Can you adopt me??? Can I have a loan??? All jokes aside, they will sacrifice ONE in hopes that MANY will stop and they can begin to recoup some of their losses.

Once again...nearing the 10000 characters....please continue on the next post.

...continuation of last post...Once again...sorry I am so long-winded.

Okay, before you throw out the argument about discs being out of print:
I HATE some of the manufacturers out there. They offer a great selection and then the sound is so bad, I wouldn't use them at a show at a deaf school, but...sometimes it is the only place to get a song that another "manu" no longer makes. Let's take, for instance, SCSP8125. I have TWO. I bought them the day my distributor got them and, before I could even open the darn things, my distributor called me and told me to NEVER open them and put them in my safety deposit box. Thank you, Tom!! I will always love you!!! Anyway, instead of using those discs for my Eagles needs, I went to other manufacturers and, ya know what...not one customer has EVER complained. No need to. Other discs are just as good and I have two collectors items. Funny how things work out. Companies sometimes stop making things. Get over it.

Here's the way the karaoke business works. You buy stuff and then you make money with it. The "manus" buy the rights to the songs. They make discs and then they make money from it by selling the discs to you. You buy the discs and you make money from it buy playing those discs at your shows. And the wheel keeps turning. BUT...You all want to get something for nothing. Can someone name me ONE, LEGITIMATE, LEGAL business where you can make money without money being spent first? Well, folks, I hate to say it, but karaoke isn't going to be the first business where that happens. If an original disc is no longer useable, for whatever reason, the LEGAL answer is to go buy a new one. PERIOD. And if it is no longer available, then you buy another brand. If the song isn't available on any other label, you get mad, erase the songs from your book and you go on with your life - with your freedom, finances and reputation intact. That's business. But you have to FOLLOW THE LAWS governing WHATEVER business you are in. BTW- If your shows are so bad that the loss of one or two songs would make you lose your show or a significant number of customers, then you should probably find another line of work anyway.

As I have said before, the "manus" are trying to come up with computer karaoke that protects THEIR investment as well as yours. Give them time to do it. If everyone would go back to original discs and SC and Stellar could spend their money and time, trying to come up with a workable, secure, karaoke computer, instead of spending all of their time trying to get back money they've already lost, it would come to fruition a lot sooner. What you are all doing is actually setting the industry back YEARS. I WANT to carry a laptop to shows and NOT all of the discs. But I am willing to wait until it is perfectly legal for me to do so. The law is never going to change so that it favors illegality. Everyone says it's an antiquated law...yeah, maybe, but it is NEVER going to be changed in your favor. A copyright is a copyright. It needs to be protected or there is no reason to get into the music industry in the first place. Once again, none of us would do our jobs for free. Why is it then, that you expect songwriters, publishers and manufacturers to do THEIR jobs for free? If you are not paying them, they are, in effect, doing their job for nothing. If I had to run karaoke for free, I would change jobs. I LOVE karaoke and the customers, but I have bills and obligations and children who want to go to college and I need to make money at my job.

I urge you all to watch Rosanna Arquette's All We Are Saying (available at Blockbuster, I think) and listen carefully to what Steven Tyler from Aerosmith has to say about what copyright infringement is doing to the music industry and his music in particular. Might just open your eyes a bit.

Anyone else recognize  "Revenge Entertainment" as sounding a lot like "Bc Studio manager" from Sound Choice?

I think That sound choice Has shot themselves in the Foot Making this decision. I for one have quit using their crap and have started using Chartbuster, as they are not Playing this BS game with the Main Customers who support them.

Sound Choice is not the Be all in Karaoke anymore.

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

I don't usually waste my time getting too involved in this issue.  I have my own opinions; and will stand by them regardless.  The old "Golden Rule" has usually led me in my personal and professional life quite well and will continue to do so.

Most law suits are carried out do to money issues.  I will never understand how playing my digital 1 to 1 ratio is taking money away from anyone.  So, I will continue to do so and even though I frown on SC's scare tactics; I will also continue to buy from them.  

My goal is to present the best karaoke show I can.  More times than not, SC provides me the best versions.  I have to give the devil there due. BUT, as others have begun to state, SC maybe counting their days.

The solution to their problem is very simple.  Go after the multi-riggers and the "illegal Cavs" systems.  I'm tired of SC and others crying the blues.  Many on this forum have told you who the true violators are.  You've been given names; places and times to find them. They do get reported.  But for some reason you turn a deaf ear and instead threatened those of us who buy our music legally and only use the 1- 1 ratio.

If for whatever reason you can't or won't make a case against the true illegal users, then don't come crying to me.

Kelly

This is the second time I heard the CAVS system referred to as having possibly done something illegal.  

Are we talking about the computer one, or the Super CDs (which I have)?

_________________
Hate is like taking poison, hoping the other guy gets sick

Can't believe CAVS, they were questionable before but now I wonder hard.  They have a new 'Server" system in which it will hold all the music & up to 9 other players can hook into it for a total of 10 systems running off 1 library - they even ADVERTISE it in their FAQ that way "First, imagine how much money you could save by having one song library and share it from up to 10 JB-199s.".  They are gearing it toward the karaoke box type places that have small rooms & you bring in your party for a private karaoke party, but being it's a server, it's only a matter of time for someone to set it up at home & go out & run multiple shows off of it via a simple internet connection (high speed wireless more than likely) - not that I would want to rely on an internet connection for anything, but there are those that would.  It also may be harder than I imagine to do but I am willing to bet it isn't.
http://www.cavsusa.com/product/H_player ... server.htm

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