Karaoke Forums

I just find this important.  It really says a lot.




OK,  I'll go now,  and will shutup unless my cage get's rattled again  LMAO

It's THAT subjective..  Topher stated it in a different thread, If we do what WE believe is right,  that's fine.  Not necessarily legal, but not necessarily illegal either.



and the first thought that comes to mind in such a case Kelly, is that after viewing amended laws, Fair Use Exception Defense, Jukebox act, DMCA, all that appears to be ambiguity and uncertainty, can also mean a feast for a Defense Atty, hence a case can backfire and Prosecuting party loses more than just court fee..  They get bad publicity.  Perhaps cases aren't going to court for a reason.  Might very well be the current writing of such laws is the best compromise to attempt to keep the future wrong doers scared, and the honest, honest. However the last thing a large business needs is for the public to hear they spend loads of money on what turned out to be a frivolous case in which they were laughed out've court.  This isn't the best incentive to keep present and future customers buying from you assuming you are a business if they now see established cases where a format shifting case was scoffed at.  Who in such a case WOULD pay such money for harddrive format when they learn copying has no penalty ?   Last thing businesses wish to risk
JMO...

Civil court cases are public.  All could follow results.

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

Yep looks as though they got out of all computer & hard drive based systems.  Could be saying something.  They used to sell computer systems bundled with PCDJ/KJ too.  They also used to have PC Karaoke where you could download & play karaoke music via the PC.

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

To TTowntenor: Since it appears that you only read a few words of what people post, this will be my last posting to you. I see no need to keep telling you the SAME EXACT things just to have you ask the SAME EXACT questions. It's in TWO parts. Please read BOTH parts IN THEIR ENTIRETY. If you STILL want to ask the same questions when you are through, ASK SOMEONE ELSE.

PART ONE:

What I said about disc replacement was: (IF WE LOSE USE OF A DISC FOR WHATEVER REASON) IF IT CAN BE REPLACED, WE REPLACE IT. IF IT IS NO LONGER IN PRINT, WE TRY TO GET A DISC (OR DISCS) TO REPLACE THE SONGS WE LOST AND WE TAKE THE DISCONTINUED DISC OUT OF OUR BOOK. IF A SONG CANNOT BE REPLACED AT ALL BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY MADE BY ONE MANUFACTURER, THEN WE TAKE THE SONG OUT OF OUR BOOK AND JUST DON'T HAVE IT ANYMORE. AND WE DON'T REALLY WORRY ABOUT IT BECAUSE ONE DISC IS NOT GOING TO RUIN OUR SHOW. And, as for insurance, we have no deductible. We would turn in our losses as they happen and we would receive the replacement cost of each disc.  However, to keep claims to a minimum and use the insurance for something more important, like if ALL the discs got stolen, we use SC's and CB's replacement policies and we look on eBay and the $5 disc site. For insurance, you have to have EVERY receipt for EVERY disc. I have them, but choose not to weed through them every time something little goes wrong.

So, at no point did I contradict myself, YOU just chose to not see what was written.

AND...just because YOU don't replace YOUR discs through SC doesn't mean SC NEVER gets money from people buying replacement disc. AND...the manufacturer GOT the money from the person from whom you bought YOUR replacement. The money circulates. When you bought your replacement disc from someone else, it was the same as you paying the manufacturer directly because they DID get paid for that disc. THEY got their money. So, at that point, TWO of the SAME disc got paid for - your original and the one you bought from eBay.



SUMMARY (just to make it easier for you): WE REPLACE EVERY DISC THAT WE CAN REPLACE. SOMETIMES WE CAN'T REPLACE EVERY DISC SO WE BUY A COMPARABLE DISC. IF WE CAN'T FIND A REPLACEMENT, WE TAKE THE LISTINGS FOR THAT DISC AND THOSE SONGS OUT OF OUR BOOKS. GOT IT??

PART TWO:

If you are NOT taking your ORIGINAL discs to the shows, what you are doing is an INFRINGEMENT of the manufacturer's copyright. The ONLY way you are NOT infringing on their copyrights is if you are using ORIGINAL DISCS. If, as you say now, you are 100% on your hard drive, then YOU ARE INFRINGING ON THE MANUFACTURERS' COPYRIGHTS ON ALL OF THE DISCS YOU HAVE RIPPED INTO YOUR COMPUTER. As I have ALSO stated MANY times to you and others, and as OTHERS have stated: If you are ONLY illegal on a 1:1 basis...meaning you have a LEGAL disc to back up every song in your computer, (ONE FOR ONE, EVERY SONG on EVERY COMPUTER you have)even though it IS ILLEGAL according to the U.S. Copyright Laws (And, again, if you don't think I am right, stop giving your opinion and ASK A COPYRIGHT LAWYER), I really don't think the manufacturers will prosecute you once it had been established that you are, indeed, ONLY illegal on a 1:1 basis. I am going to repeat that sentence now without the parentheses: If you are ONLY illegal on a 1:1 basis...meaning you have a LEGAL disc to back up every song in your computer, even though it IS ILLEGAL according to the U.S. Copyright Laws, I really don't think the manufacturer's will prosecute you once it has been established that you are, indeed, ONLY illegal on a 1:1 basis. Most of you have all agreed that you think the manufacturers are probably more interested in the guy who has never bought discs and is running a computer show. Now, that is my opinion and I have seen others share the same opinion. But, you really SHOULD see a copyright lawyer and find out the laws governing the business you chose to be in.

They CAN have you prosecuted for ANY infringement of their copyright, but it would be more worth their while to go after someone costing them more in sales. BUT...if they come to your computer run show, they will (and can BY LAW) confiscate your equipment and keep it until it is established that you do, indeed, have 1:1 originals at home. And, the wheels of justice turn slowly, so you will be out of the business for awhile anyway. And, while they are establishing that you own discs, they will have to have physical custody of said discs, so you will not be able go back to the "old" way of running shows either, until the case is dropped or taken to court. The manufacturers are not just going to BELIEVE you and TRUST you when you TELL them you are running your computer 1:1 with the originals at home, in your trunk, in a safety deposit box, on the roof or wherever you tell them they are.


To those of you still trying to link "fair use" to karaoke (A COMMERCIAL VENTURE) I still challenge you all to call the manufacturers and tell them you will use their product however you see fit and you don't care that you are infringing on their copyrights. Then tell them where to find you. If you want proof whether what your doing is against the law or not, someone has to take a chance at going to prison. As has been said many times in this thread, there's no case law because no one has ever fought it. If you are all so right, fight it. Acting like you are big and brave in a forum is not the same as actually making a stand in the real world. If you are innocent, what are you worried about? If you aren't going to put your money where your mouth is, then why are you so worried about it that you have to grasp on to ANY possible life preserver (i.e. IPJustice) that you think MIGHT be saying that you haven't broken any laws? Don't take my word for it and keep telling me I am wrong and that it will all be done on a case by case basis. Yes, PROSECUTIONS will take place on a case by case basis, but whether you are breaking the law or not has already been established, you are all just trying to justify it. Before you come at me, again, saying I don't know what I am talking about, TALK TO A COPYRIGHT LAWYER. Posting what you THINK the law is, what you WANT the law to be and, in several cases, what the law has NEVER been and WILL NEVER be, won't make you right. One poster (I will not mention names, but you can read the post in this thread) seemed to think that, after they buy a disc, THEY are then the COPYRIGHT HOLDER and are entitled to the rights granted EXCLUSIVELY to the copyright holder. I hope everyone else understands that we in NO WAY are the copyright holder at ANY time unless we wrote the song in question - and then, we have to share the copyright with publishers, etc.. You all get that part, at least, right?

AND...those of you who refuse to see that you are breaking the law, or see it and do not care, remember that the manufacturers are not JUST going after KJs in this. They are targeting the BARS AND CLUBS where you play. If you want to risk your OWN business and your OWN freedom, go ahead. But what right do you have to risk SOMEONE ELSE'S business? If the bar is found guilty because they allowed you to use your illegal systems in their establishment, THEY lose their liquor license. None of us has the right to use our OPINIONS to decide on someone else's fate. Do you think your "regulars" at any show will still go to any of your other shows if you get their favorite bar shut down because you didn't FEEL like following the law? Oh wait...WHAT other shows? You won't have equipment...and, if you, by chance, come up with equipment, what bar would be stupid enough to take a chance on hiring the karaoke company that got another bar shut down or fined or both??? If this is your business, call a copyright lawyer and find out for CERTAIN what rights you have in this situation.

And, if BC happens to be monitoring this forum: As SC and Stellar bust and prosecute KJs and clubs in Arizona, it would be nice to read about even the cases that settle out of court. Maybe if illegal KJs see enough of their own start to go down, they will get a clue and either go legit or quit altogether.
 
The last part of this post has absolutely nothing to do with the current thread, but it really bugs me and I have to say it. When writing in these forums, if you feel an urge to use your thesaurus, then PLEASE use your spelling and grammar checkers also. It becomes painfully obvious that someone is using a thesaurus when they don't even have a basic grasp on the English language, but they insist on using $4 words and those are the ONLY words, over five letters long, that are spelled correctly. When you try so hard to use big words that, on several occasions you used incorrectly, and the rest of the text is difficult to read because of grammar, spelling and punctuation errors, the meaning of your post gets lost. You defeat your own purpose if you use a thesaurus to try to appear smarter than you are, but the rest of what you say makes no sense grammatically. I, on occasion, use $4 words. I don't use them to try to appear smarter than I am. My mother was an English teacher and I spent most of my childhood reading the dictionary just so I could figure out why she was yelling at me. Now, before you all jump on me about this, understand that this is not aimed at everyone. Most of you make clear, concise statements and I have no trouble following your thoughts and ideas no matter how many, or which,  big words you use.

Now...DBK1009 You posted:



When the manufacturer loses the right to press any more of a disc, they still own the copyright to the disc they already pressed and sold to me. And the publishers still have many rights concerning the song, as well. As long as the "alphabet police" are paid by the bar for having karaoke, I am well within my rights to play the disc. Also, if I buy ANY disc in good faith from a manufacturer, I am within my rights to use that disc for shows. Now...if a publisher tells me I cannot play a certain song, then I will abide by the law because that's part of business. And, I think I mentioned before that I have never even opened my copies of SC8125 so I am, quite obviously, not playing them at shows. And KJs were never ordered or even ASKED to return the discs to the stores or to Sound Choice. The distributors were asked to return UNSOLD copies. They did that. If I had been ordered or asked to return my copies, I would have done so as long as I got my money back. Why? Because it's the right thing to do.

I bought a set of discs from an Australian dealer a few years ago because the set had ONE song that I really wanted that was not available ANYWHERE else. When I got them, they were all burns. I could have kept them and used them at home (that would be for PERSONAL USE for which I probably wouldn't get in trouble) because the song I wanted was for me, not a customer, but they were illegal burns, so I got my money back. Would I have used them at shows if I could not get my money back? Not a chance. I believe that ANY infringement hurts the industry as a whole. THAT is what I do when I am SURE a company does not have the rights to songs. If it is a professional pressing, I have no way of knowing which songs are legally licensed, but, if there was a problem, I am sure that the "alphabet police" would make sure I was aware and I would do as they ordered in accordance with the law. As I have stated before, if I was doing this for beer money or extra Christmas money, I would not have an issue. It wouldn't matter to me if the industry suffered BECAUSE of me. But I do this as a business and if the industry is suffering, EVERYONE doing this as a business suffers as well.

AGAIN I ask you what the deductable would be for turning in the loss of one disc?



When i buy my disc from someone else HOW does the original manu benefit from that sale?  They were paid for the original sale...sure, but if I bought a used disc, they see nothing of THAT sale?  They seen the original sale only, not any subsequent sale of that disc?



Now c'mon you can't have both, either you replace damaged discs, or you don't.  You stated that you replace every damaged disc, then you stated that if you can't replace a damaged disc, then it's no big deal that 1 disc won't hurt a show.



So you admit by my taking ALL my originals to the show while i'm using the computer there is no problem?  



So now you are contradicting yourself?!?!?



C'mon, get your story straight!



Show ONCE where you have agreed with that!



YES now you finally say something that the legit computer users can agree with!



I will, as many will, wait for the first case to be tried before I make my decision on going back to running all originals or kepp on running computer, which in my eyes is no different!



They could see ON THE SPOT!!!!!!  I have ALL my discs at EVERY venue I play!!!!



AGAIN, my discs are with me at EVERY show!




MTU has already admitted they would take on any case against one of their users on a TRUE 1:1 basis, so I feel pretty confident!  They did say if ANY songs EVEN ONE are not something that we owned an original to, then we are on our own!

_________________
[shadow=deepskyblue]I'm impressed, I've never met such a small mind inside such a big head before.[/shadow]

Revenge Karaoke,
Are your eyes brown..........

I don't think you believe you postings anymore than we do. The opinions of sound choice and Stellar are the major things that are fueling this Argument. If you don't believe you have any rights, then They have already won. Regardless of the law.

There is no Specific Laws that cover What we are discussing here specifically, Ony the opinion of 2 manu's and their opinion is skewed towards into makeing them a windfall. They won't be getting it from me.

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

I can't believe that this topic is being beaten to death once again. Why do folks allow themselves to be baited by posters like Revenge?  He is no lawyer, OR IS HE?  And everyone who has participated herein knows the issues as well as he, or anyone else.  The bottom line is, most of us are not impressed with his and similar OPINIONS.  Those of you who like to expend your energy creating analogies to justify copying and shifting libraries -bless your hearts.  Those of you who want to dismiss those analogies or create contrary ones, bless your hearts, as well.

So, after all of these current posts (in addition to the hundreds of other posts that preceded these on other threads), how much closer are we to resolving the issue?  And Revenge, what is your agenda in this regard?

I will say, as I have before, if there is a case to be made, LET THE KARAOKE MANUS MAKE IT.  Why would anyone on this forum make the case for them.  If there is a legal case to be won, some karaoke manufacturer would have sued someone by now!!!  There are plenty of big enough illegal fish out there to go after.  And I still wonder if there has been no such case because the manus may not be able to define their damages, even if they prevail in such a case.  I can't see what damages are experienced by a manufacturer resulting from those who run 1:1 operations?  Without damages, what will they end up winning?

Why do we continue to "torture" ourselves with this type of discussion perpetuated by posters like Revenge?  Whew

Well,  I can honestly tell you that in my own case,  It's somewhat of a deliberate choice.  It creates a type of "White Noise" that jams out the significant probs in my life. It's also kind've fun to feel as though I'm back out on a 3rd grade playground at elementary school. Where arguments such as "My Uncle is an Atty so you better listen to me",  and  "My father can beat up your father" might have been believed.  


OK, considering this is the Internet when somebody says "I spoke to an Atty so I know more than you", let's deduct a few years from the 3rd grade scenerio;  You must admit,  it does paint a funny picture visualizing a bunch of middle-aged adults running around slapping one-another wearing only diapers in a playpen.  Parody, and comic books are filled with this type content.  It's just an interactive form of "Duck Duck Goose".  Doc tells me I need to play more in life, anyway  :hug:

It's been over 45 years since I was told to "Go stand in the Hallway" by a teacher.  I miss those formative years of my life  :(



.

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

ericlater, it's not the topic per se' that cause all the posts.  I would venture to say that any post that "Revenge" entered into could create this.  If you remember a while back we had a person who went by the name of Big Dog.  He, She or it, created the same type of responses.  

Most of us on this forum are mature and level headed enough to enter into discussions and debate and respect each others views though they be different then our own; and let it go at that.  Some people though cannot discuss or share views unless their view is accepted without question.  And  that attitude just drives me up the frickin' wall!  LOL

Kelly

Where are the women in here ?


I think I just made a poopy  :(

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

FWIW, I spoke to a copyright attorney for about 15 minutes today and asked him about a couple of the issues we're discussing here.  One of the perks of being a lawyer is that you can often get a little bit of free legal advice as a professional courtesy.  Had I been paying for his time, the little he told me would probably have cost me fifty bucks.  

The first question I asked him was whether a KJ copying a legitimately-acquired copyrighted CDG onto another disc for backup purposes on a 1:1 basis is copyright infringement if done for commercial purposes.

His answer: probably not.  I believe his exact words were something closer to "I would have no problem with that."  It wasn't completely clear to me whether he meant he didn't believe there was an infringement, or whether the infringement was so technical that no one would bother pursuing it.  Following up, I asked him if, assuming the original disc were stolen or damaged, the KJ could then make another backup copy.   He believed so, as long as there were never more than two discs in existence at one time.  He pointed me to a section of the Copyright Act that specifically provided that a copy of a "computer program" could be made and retained for archival purposes.  He did not know if a CDG qualified under the term "computer program" or not, but he seemed to think there would most likely be no violation in either case.

I then asked him if a KJ could copy a legally-acquired copyrighted CDG onto a computer for commercial purposes.

His answer: probably not.  While format shifting is not automatically a copyright infringement, he felt that what courts usually look at is whether or not the shift deprives the copyright holder of potential sales, which in this case he felt it would.  I pointed out to him that in many cases the manufacturers don't release a computer version, but this did not seem to matter.  The copyright holder has the right to dictate in what format the copyrighted material will be released.  Although he didn't say so, I suspect that another justification is that even if a computer version has not been released, the copyright holder could decide to release one at any time.

I mentioned to him that, at least until recently (and probably still), it was easy to obtain hard drives pre-loaded with hundreds of copyrighted songs.  He seemed quite surprised.

Again, you can take this information for what I paid for it.  But at least it comes from someone who knows something about copyright law and who doesn't have an agenda in favor of either the manufacturers or the KJs.

_________________
Reward: nine yen in drawer.

Gotta agree with you Eric!  The problem with R.E. is that she paid for a lawyer to advise her of the copyright law.  The legal opinion she received is therefore the only opinion that is correct.  She chooses to ignore the fact that another person or organisation paid for legal advice from a different lawyer, whose research led to a totally different opinion.  Of course some of the findings are totally in agreement and in these, it is clear what is legal and what is not (eg, copying a disk and selling the copies).  


Now, we all know that, throughout history, lawyers win cases and lawyers lose cases.  Why do lawyers lose cases? I think it is because their legal interpretations are not quite as correct as they believed them to be.

So which lawyer's advice do you accept?  I believe it is up to the individual to make their own choice.  If they make a choice based on advice such as IPJustice has given, then that is their right.  Maybe they could face legal proceedings down the track.  Maybe they won't!  And if they do, maybe they will lose, or just maybe they will win!  R.E. has stated for a fact that they would lose.   She has also told everyone here what they can and cannot do, based on what her lawyer advised her.  She will not accept that her lawyer just might be incorrect in interpreting  the fair use act.  But she is well within her right to do so.  Just as it is anyone elses right to accept what another lawyer's advice might be.  I do not think that anyone has the right to dictate to anyone else on this forum what they can or cannot do (Admin excepted! ), especially where professional legal opinion differs so much.


In my opinion, the way the fair use act is worded and the four criteria within it that must be (ie it is mandatory that they are) included, is intended to leave it solely to the judgement of the court as to what is fair to all parties concerned.  And in my opinion that is why the fair use act is so non-specific.

and he still would not have given you a definitive answer because realistically, He can't know absolutes even assuming you retained him for $3000, (likely minimum amount) and he spent a few hours studying a few details specific to your use.  He wouldn't commit himself to "You are definately FINE", or "Go profess your expertise now to a room full of internet folk and let them all know____",  


Makes sense that an actual Atty would supply answers in such a case that ARE NOT
definitive such as:





This is realistic.  But of course NO individual has endorsed such statements for logical reasons. They CAN'T know absolutes.  Assuming there even was established case history, they will only figure likelihood of winning or losing even downplaying their thoughts for reasons of self protection.

Why would he wish to put himself in a situation and play "Psychic" feigning to know the outcome of hypothetical settlements that have yet to go thru a litigation process ?

Thanks Tom.  I think most who've had internet accounts for any period of time know that 80% of the population has an IQ over 300,  95% of the male population is EXTREMELY well-endowed, 70% of the internet population have 9 digit incomes, 60 room homes, etc.  Behind such anonymity anyone who feels such a need, will play "expert".




Actually I'd be quite surprised if somebody in such a specialized area of law would offer a consultation for as little as $200/hour.  If he has the time I suppose. Dunno.  


Often the closest to an absolute will be something such as


.
.

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

OR,  a judge perhaps jury were more impressed by the presentation of "the other" party, whether rhetoric was better, appearance was more compelling, they might not have liked a certain person..  Outcomes of court cases aren't always fair, they aren't always logical or even reasonable to some.   It's subjective.  Some of the best Atty's are pretty good actors.  LMAO   While some of the best litigators drive certain judges crazy.  LOL

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

with all due respect BD always retained his black humour...largely he was taking the p i s s. There is a differnce tween tongue in cheek s**t stirring and hormonal zealousness.
I am a witch and a woman does this count Kappy?

_________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel... Because those that matter... Don't mind...And those that mind... Don't matter."

  I have little knowledge of either  :(

Well, That's not exactly true,  this I have a fairly good idea about

Raven hair and ruby lips
sparks fly from her finger tips
Echoed voices in the night
she's a restless spirit on an endless flight

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"First, from this day forward, when your mother tells you she loves you - get a second opinion."

                               Told to Marty on his first day of law school    -R.  Gere


                                                                                                     Primal Fear[/quote]

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

I understand Morgan, but I think even that type of "black humor" as you put it is unwarranted for the most part.  Only because most people don't like it. I keep up with a few other KJ sites and he (BD) has gotten himself "Banded" from those sites as well.

Being committed to a cause is one thing but if you continually alienate folks; it accomplishes nothing.  IMO.

Kelly

yes darlin I agree, black humour is all well and good but sometimes you have to know when to back off  :hug: now I must away to do some work

_________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel... Because those that matter... Don't mind...And those that mind... Don't matter."

Believe it or not,  even I've been known to resort to facetious humor a time or two.


Many really do not like "humor with a bite", sarcasm, etc.  I grew up around it, started using "gallows humor" as a means of attempting to keep a certain amount of sanity during periods I felt I was losing it.  It's pretty interesting however.  MANY countries don't understand this type of humor.  I think it's actually British in origin (but I don't know).   Seems that those I've known with the most profound type of sarcastic humor were British, American, South African, Australian, etc. Many from different areas find it offensive.  Yet a few of the South African folks I've known have an EXTREMELY twisted (and I mean this in terms of hilarity) depth to such humor.  Not sure why.  Just my own observation.  Hilarious IMHO.

It's an acquired humor that some can't stand,  others of us live in it.  ALL have a right to despise sarcasm I suppose.  Since many believe it's a defensive posture and mockery.   I deliberately try most of the time to just target myself with my biting sarcasm because I have learned how it affects many. When Letterman was very new around 1982, he got in quite abit of trouble for what was construed as "sexism", and "vulgar" sardonic glib.  Now more resort to this type of humor and consider it "goofy".  It's an interesting means of attempting to cut thru a society that's become extremely "Politically Correct" in the eyes of some of us that grew up in more of a "Fighting it out in the playground" atmosphere. Or, love thyself enough to stick up for yourself because it develops character. (Of course back than a playground fight didn't include a chance of getting shot with a gum.).  Many do hate shows such as "Married with Children", "Howard Stern", etc.  They see the targets of the humor, when others of us just see the humor and nothing more.


Neither is wrong or right.  Anymore than those that like the color blue, and can't stand red.  Although certain types of humor can be completely condescending I suppose.  I think a lot of this has to do with our own experiences having been around such humor, assuming we have been at all.   Some haven't been, some don't even allow this type of humor,  I've seen kids punished for resorting to it. For "being fresh",  I used to get my mouth washed out with soap  


JMO

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

When looking at Copyright Infringement ONE possible defense is:

Example:  ("Good Faith" seems to actually take onus off of Defendant in small cases, basically it's intent and reason, or,  might be as simple as "I don't believe I actually did anything wrong in backing up something I needed for my job". Surprisingly, this is an area that does allow for a certain degree of ignorance at times)        



As mentioned earlier *De Minimis*,  (not substantial)



Additionally whether the Copyright holder can even collect Atty fee's assuming he wins depends on the jurisdiction of the infringement

Looks as though punitive damages are seldom rewarded or even sought in Copyright Infringement litigation.  

It looks as if charges would be based on actual profit loss (or actual Monetary losses), and there can also be Statutory charges.  I'm trying to find examples of when a judge possibly would, and would less-likely pursue Statutory law in an infraction.   This is pretty interesting,  but when you think about it,  to press charges in a district where "reasonable Atty fees" will not be compensated to a case winner can tip the balance I'd think... Hmmm,  and the courts do appear to have almost TOTAL discretion in such cases, so not much appears to be a :sure thing: in smaller cases.  

Just figured I'd share what I've read so-far.  It's interesting and as we've discussed an ambiguous area which seems as though a Defendant wouldn't have a tough time plea bargaining (yet that's usually in criminal law) don't know how that'd work in different jurisdictions, or how Civil and Criminal infraction actually differs (with exception of degree?) either in THIS particular area.  All specialty areas are subject to different principles even terminology so dunno.  I wonder if "cease and desist" is the maximum that can really be done in small cases... again,  just reading and sharing thoughts.

This is an area of Tort law it seems but I think what's going to happen with that Ebayer based on degree and amount is that rather than pursue "civil" charges (which are usually how smaller cases must be pursued), Criminal charges are being sought, and she's going to be charged with Counterfeiting millions of dollars worth of material.  Which makes me wonder,  why the heck did the small KJ and format shifting even crop up in this thread ?  There's no dang comparison  LMAO

I'm curious,  anyone have an answer to this ?  Haven't looked into it.  

If a KJ is playing a private wedding, or at a private home, church, or any private event.  Although the KJ is making money, what is the clearcut deliniation between "Private" and "Commercial" Use ?  Do they lump Commercial Use, and Private Gain in comparable categories assuming commercial use is insignificant and they still feel compelled to prosecute regardless ?  I'm wondering how much play the term "Commercial" has in THIS area of law.  Or can this be more grey area ?


Since there's Commercial broadcast, and commercial use, in these particular cases regarding "infringement" charge, do church, home, small private bars constitute de minimis situation ???  Seems they might, which is why there's never been a case of anything beyond "Cease and Desist".   Or is it the nature of the person who is playing the material  despite quantity?  Businessman vs kid volunteering at private party. Not sure how much sense that alone would make in the case of a tiny bar.   Sale of CD-G's in this case copied for business sale and direct profit are of course more tangible types of miswillful conduct and unlawful transfer.   Since I'm not a KJ,  I don't know how this works, not sure what constitutes "commercial" today for entertainers,  How the two areas might overlap, etc.  They say this area is "deliberately ambiguous", Does a copy have to be visually discernible as something duplicated ? Cases where copying is visually discernible isn't easy when a person is playing a few songs in a dark small venue, and even though it's been said a KJ can make due without one copy, one copy also doesn't seem at all significant IMHO..    Seems exchanging an actual media form containing tangible material where it's discernible that a LARGE portion was deliberately lifted off've a copyrighted original is easier to "bust", as is copied written literature, a slide presentation that's been plagiarized, or something where there's an obvious perceptible means of knowing that ____ was stolen from ____ for purposes of sale of material consisting of copies for monetary gain to another party, or deliberately capitalizing off've the works of another. as opposed to reasonably making an accomodation that's affordable for you which might not even be considered unreasonable at all.   Intent to Counterfeit, and Plagiarize tangible material vs playing a couple of songs at a small bar seems to be VERY different aspects that would be considered regarding "Commercial",  Ebayer Counterfeits 3 million, and Kappy copies "Houses of the Holy" off've a tape and sells it to J Doe for 1.50 ...(CD and time cost)  HAHAHAHA.... again I dunno,  just sharing a few thoughts.

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