Karaoke Forums

Matt if you're so certain of your stance and that you are right, the punishment shouldn't worry you.  It only applies if you lose.  So if you're right then you have changed a law.  I guess you're not that sure afterall.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

The above info DID NOT come from an Atty, this has not come from a source familiar with United States Civil Law, or a source familiar with complexities serving a "Civil Summons" out've state depending on laws within specific jurisdiction (these are seldom Federal or established Criminal situations).  In cases of ESTABLISHED Copyright infringement ONLY burden shifts to Defendant. This does not mean at some businesses whim *ANY* entertainer who *MIGHT* not be legit loses his rights in our system of jurisprudence.  Before burdon shifts onto Defendant, evidence has been established, and this isn't easy, inexpensive, or so simplistic.  "They" can't just walk up to your show on what MIGHT be an erroneous lead.  Evidence is STILL initially on the Plaintiff to show cause.  There are reasons there haven't been KJ busts for this, and HOW long have KJ's existed and HOW many have been guilty of format shifting ?  MANY !  This isn't simplistic.

This individual is confusing warrants that can seize equipment (in any state in cases of CERTAIN suspected CRIMINAL activities involving but not limited to drugs, pornography, etc) or when Federal charges have ALREADY been established based on KNOWN Criminal behaviour. Not, small scale copying of your own CD-G, if a business is wrong they subject themselves to malicious prosecution. A KJ HAS NOT forfeited his rights to fair law based on the fact that he is using Copyright Protected material. This individual makes it sound as if we live in some sort've "Fascist Karaoke Police" state where "they" have supreme judicial power as an Autocratic group of tyrants, and "they" can come and get you, randomly jail you and take away/ seize your equipment at will (and without court order in ANY and ALL states, without having gone thru thousands of dollars worth of avenues, and for what ??  for what has yet to be established as MAYBE de minimus civil infraction activity regarding a 1:1 copying individual ?).. This is a complete joke !   This is the United States,  Sound Choice and ALL business MUST work within circumscribed legal parameters, and we are talking Karaoke songs at a small bar, or is this now viewed in staunch terms along with Drug and Pornography rings ?  

To worry about THIS type thing happening assuming you copy 1:1 currently makes as much sense as worrying about leaving your house for fear of getting thrown in jail for rape because a woman you never met decides to make a claim that "you raped her", can it happen, Yep. If you folks have the time to obsess over this highly improbable event you should wear goggles next time you go to a meteor shower (bring an umbrella too). Also ponder "How significantly deformed the neighbors dogs' great grand-litter will be three years down the road from your spouses flatulence problems depleting the ozone layer" etc..

Show me prisons that have so much room, and courts that have so much time that incarcerating the "KJ copying his legit purchased CD's to harddrive" is the new crime of the decade ?  First it's copy your CD, than before you know it it's the really nasty criminal activity such as becoming an "accessory" to felonious criminal behaviour by the inadvertant loaning of music to someone that *didn't buy his copy* but taped yours and even played it at a college mixer .  (Just knowing such a criminal makes you guilty thru association).  Has our judicial system really become this frivolous, have peoples lives ?  Just what I'd love to see my tax dollar go for,  feeding the incarcerated KJ who copied his purchased CD's onto his harddrive, because THESE are the very dangerous people on the streets !!!   Must NEVER be allowed to mingle in a social environment with civilized americans  :shock: ..  The incessant "you can't do that" rant is not discouraging or scaring ANYBODY by the use of histrionics, and fabricated "what if" stories because MOST of us live in a world containing actual significant issues that occupy our time.  

My God, I'd hate to live in such a world filled with ongoing tragedy and horror worrying about them but in reality MOST ofthem would just assume copy 1:1 than pay money they ALSO don't have when in fact they bought an original and can and will copy 1:1 as well.   You see, MOST have other expenses too ! EVEN they aren't angels, and to kick this around over and over again when you are in the minority telling everybody how "BAD" they are is ridiculous. Live your life, and leave others alone.  This is even more pathetic an obsession than the neighbors golf score going up 2 points.. the end of life as we once knew it  :(   To date only one case involving Karaoke, and you read it in the original post; This woman (OP) has pleaded Guilty to Criminal charges of counterfeiting likely WELL over a million dollars worth of Copyrighted material knowingly.  You will not find such an action taken by :them: because :they: aren't without fear of reprisal, or the tremendous risks of the countersuit for their malicious prosecution in a case that turns out to be deemed as Minimus. ('Burden of proof falling onto the Defendant" in these cases DOES NOT pertain to the above mentioned scenario UNTIL there's an established charge of Copyright infringement, AND THAT in these cases can only be established by THE COURT, and must be deemed as acceptable BY the court to go to trial, these cases WON'T automatcally be accepted by many courts due to their insignificance). It is in Criminal cases where Federal warrants arrest and seize.  What determines this is often SUM of money, and depending on state a company may NOT have an easy time. In certain cases involving taxation where there's significant arrearage a judgement lien on a persons property, or in some states quicker action of Foreclosure. This individual doesn't have a clue when stating "It's illegal so they can seize your equipment" what this process entails. In fact, she has given several Atty's a good laugh reading this.  A person can be "served" for wrongdoing, but people don't "take" your equipment to see if you have a 1:1 ratio  


I guess some people aren't aware that certain types of malicious prosection are ground for massive countersuits, and separate actions brought against the Plaintiff for FAR higher stakes.  

The person posting this fictitious "Copyright Atty sanctioned" Legal (clearing throat) expertise does not seem to understand that something IS NOT illegal in this area of law until its use has been RULED by a court of law as such. Until that point in a civil case there ARE NO established grounds for the 1:1 copier getting "arrested", his "equipment seized" "thrown in Jail", etc.. The Ebay woman MIGHT get 18 months and several years of home release however even THIS remains to be established..

Granted what Tim states regarding "lack of sufficient evidence due to non-existence of prior case law not pardoning the wrong-doer of an illegal action" *IS* true.  In ALL these cases however, what *MIGHT* be considered *some degree* of Illegality  is only illegal when ruled as such BY THE COURT IN THE DISTRICT OF THE VIOLATION (in a civil case). Statutory damages are part of the penalty phase only, and would be extremely costly against a SMALL 1:1 copier..AND, for these reasons, you don't see these cases coming up.  They can't when you consider burden of proof in a court of law ALWAYS rests on the Plaintiff, and that burden ONLY shifts onto the Defendant (who will most likely attempt to resort to The Fair Use Defense REGARDLESS of whether use was commercial or private once the court has ruled the Defendant is guilty of some degree of Copyright infringement),  extent still remains to be determined by trial and this takes years.  The "Fair Use Defense" IS for private and commercial defendants, it's used by ALL Atty's in Copyright violation cases !  In fact, this exists for EVERYBODY IN ALL the AREAS of Copyright law, (since there are different areas of "Fair Use") that are contextually different in application.  There are a few things that will stifle the Plaintiff in such civil cases,  two areas are jurisdiction, and the fact that a system of Jurisprudence will supersede any immediate claims of "guilt" when doubt exists.  In the case of the Ebay counterfeiter this was easy,  she confessed, and there were hundreds of thousands of exchanged tangible copies of the material,  evidence of the sum of her monetary gain, hence calculating damages are not difficult.  She also admitted guilt and deliberate intent to counterfeit Copyright protected material.

You can sit around arguing how significant an insignificant act is based upon "principle", yet based upon reason paying huge sums of money in certain cases is absurd assuming you don't have to. To obsess over "getting busted" in such a case and "what ifs" is actually quite a luxury considering the chances of any one of us not waking up tomorrow morning has a much higher statistical likelihood, then the chances of the Karaoke police seizing your equipment or even busting you at all if you are a 1:1 copier.  This is trite.

 Oh please.  Reply, oh please do reply.   Tell us all how it doesn't format shift, that the contiguous bit pattern on the CD is identical to the raw audio data that hits the DAC.  Go ahead.  Tell us that.  Expose the silly people and their silly ideas, even if the idea is correct, it's still silly and we can't have that.   Don't let the facts get in your way.   Please continue, hold that silly thought up to the pure light of pointless and unfounded ridicule.  No need to present an arguement showing up an error, just scoff and call it silly that is so much easier.  I hang my head in shame to be so silly.  I think it is your civic duty, and would be a great service to humanity, to explain to the whole world how my contention is wrong to the point of "silly."

_________________
Okay, who took my pants?

you'd lose that bet. I don't think I'd be wrong. I fully believe in my stance... but when you're facing 250GRAND PER violation, hey the big boys win. Hands down.[/quote]

Matt sorry to say, if you believe in your stance so much you'd be willing to take it to court if challenged since you believe you'd win.  By pulling out of the game completely, you've admitted to everyone that you are wrong & do not believe you'd win in court.  SORRY, you cannot continue to defend computer karaoke!  

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

TT you've got the quotes wrong.  The statement in the quote box is mine.  The reply under the box is Matt's.  Your reply under that is right on.

Ex-weed, it's simple.  A CDG player is designed to play CDGs.  It is not copying or format shifting to save the media, it is only playing it.  But nice try.

Steve, a civil suit once again is different than a criminal case.  You do not have to prove a monetary loss under the Copyright Act.  There are various people in prisons for various offences.  Some very serious, some not.  Chances are that should a host be convicted they would be given a fine, maybe house arrest and/or probation, and be prohibited from being a host or owning a karaoke company.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Wrong!!!!!!

Music on a cd is digital....... Music played is analog. any way you go you are format shifting. the Cd player takes the 1 & 0 bits and converts them to an analog signal. the amp then amplifies the analog signal and passes it to the speakers.

the only case where a conversion is not done is in a phono recors. it is pure analog. But still it is converting from one type of analog to another.

Still it is that a computer is storing the digital from the cd for later processing (playing). Unless you substantially change the track you read into the computer, it is the same track.

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

Tim,

    In accordance with the Berne convention any seizure requires ESTABLISHED evidence. Nowhere does the Copyright Act give a business itself such supreme judicious powers.  The Copyright act at the non-federal stage has no teeth. It's NOT a tool that enables a Plaintiff the power a few here are crediting it to have.   Any seizure STILL must adhere to the laws and legislation of each country.  Without a case being taken to the Federal level this is sheer speculation. Too date (in  a Karaoke format), there is only ONE case where this has been prosecuted at the Federal level. What many are assuming is "the current law", is just fantasy law.

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

 :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :giveup

This argument will go down as one of the greatest of all time !!!
TASTE GREAT ...LESS FILLING  

Let's say you have 10,000 individual Karaoke Songs on Xamount of legally purchased CDG's from SOUND CHOICE. - You want to go digital and dread RIPPING all these songs to your hardrive.   Someone in a FEDORA and a TRENCH COAT  (fully clothed) overs to sell you a LOADED hardrive with the EXACT SONGS you have on CDGS...not one more ...or one less.  

WOULD YOU BUY IT FOR THE RIGHT PRICE ?

I didn't admit to being wrong about computer karaoke.  What I did was get disgusted over the fact that the manus aren't even willing to TRY to work with us. I left the commercial side not because I was wrong, but because I realize it's a losing battle. From a strictly point of fact basis, I know that the manus would much rather go after the big fish. I was a part time kj. I have a hard time paying my bills... what makes me even BEGIN to think I could take on a couple of millionaires like the Slep Brothers in court? They'd win JUST because they can afford to do the legal wrangling.

I will admit that I DID feel that I had the right to convert my material, and it was covered under a purchase rights situation. I've been proven wrong on that. Unfortunately, that was my sole defense to conversion of purchased materials.

I will continue to defend my BELIEF that converting your original discs to computer format is not stealing, and no loss to the manu. I will continue to stand by my stance that we 1:1ers are in fact allies of the manufacturers.

TTown, Tim, and the rest that disagree with me... you have that RIGHT to disagree, as much as I have the RIGHT as a former Karaoke Company Owner to defend what I did, when I did it.

Pbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtb!  

Only if this individual purchased the trenchcoat legitimately, and I was DAMN certain that the trenchcoat wasn't a knock-off of a trademark protected logo that was being infringed upon !

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

There is no way that the price for a CDG Based KJ will ever go back to where it was several years back. Bars will not pay an inflated price for what they thought they were getting all along. If you believe that....you are way out of touch with reality.

In my opinion Matt has done nothing morally wrong by 1:1 format shift.  I believe he believes that as well. I also understand why he has left the business as he feels betrayed by the manufacturers that will not attempt to make allowances for the 1:1 users, which in turn make it difficult for him to operate legally even though he has paid the price. I too have all but eliminated my bar gigs because of this.

In the beginning KJ's built (SC's) business and created the bar and end user market for them....now it's like the KJ is the small fish in a large pond. It's quite clear that they are focusing on the consumer market and could care less about the KJ that has invested thousands and is trying to protect that investment by going digital.

The following statement may sound a bit over the top, but what if:

SC began offering direct streaming of karaoke music to bars and consumers in the future. Why else would they send such a letter putting the honest KJ in the position of defending themselves regarding 1:1 use with the bar owner and causing the bar owner to distrust all KJ's for fear that they may be breaking the law and making the bar liable. CDG based shows would be required to continually prove they are in compliance as well. We have all been thrown into this "his this KJ legal" pot.

Think about it....Stirr up the pot....confuse the hell out of the bar owner and then when all the damage is done.....Offer the "Legal Solution" to them with technology that guarantees they are completely legal. A monthly fee and a pay per play would solve all of the licensing problems for the bar or consumer as SC would be responsible for all of that on their end. The bar or end user would not have possession of a disc only the ability to access via the net and pay per play could be easily tracked and the proper royalties could be dispensed. The bar can still have a KJ to run the shows....of course at a reduced rate. SC would then be in the drivers seat with regard to repeat business....imagine no discs to replace....no more format shifting pirates or disc pirates to deal with etc.  Is it possible...YOU BET!

I might be totally wrong about this but it sure seems like that is the way it is heading. It's quite obvious that SC is no longer Pro KJ.

If it does happen imagine where it leaves all of the KJ's (CDG or Digital Based)
S.O.L.


Don't laugh....it could happen!  







 LOL

_________________
FlipSide Karaoke
Scott

OR,  You might be totally correct.  



Guaranteed !    A court will consider this.  Given factors this would almost certainly be deemed a de minimus situation a court would not wish to take time for, and YES the courts are allowed discretion in these cases.  They don't have to allow them assuming they believe they are frivolous.  In fact, why has it ocurred to NOBODY that just because something is "currently illegal" means that if it were in fact pursued in a court of law, it wouldn't be a potential explosion or shot in the foot for the Plaintiff pursuing it with serious ramifications ?  Why do so many people automatically assume "scare letter" means recipient is guilty of ANYTHING ? or anything more CAN be done ?  Sound Choice might VERY well be calling somebody's "bluff".  A letter stating "I wish to advise you that ______ may wish to pursue further legal action" with an Atty's letter head DOES NOT necessarily mean the Atty actually believes he can !

FACTS:  "Reasonable accomodation given circumstance"
            "Whether INTENT was to defraud"
            "Monetary loss incurred to Copyright owner by action"

THIS is what the courts look at. These "what if" scenerios are specious. Not unlike the old saying "You will be sued for slander".  What does this really mean ?  What does it mean in YOUR state ? Unless there is evidence of biased crime which is considered criminal HOW many cases do you know of on the dockets in your areas superior courts that are just "slander" based suits ?  I don't believe one has ever succeded in CT history that has amounted to anything of significance .Unless slander in SOME jurisdictions is considered a criminal act of biased crime,  HOW MANY of us have not personally been told that "we can get sued for slander" ?   Do you know what this involves ?  A public newspaper might be at risk, a larger commercial venue for distributing info might be at risk, but do you really believe a many spend MANY thousands of dollars to try to enforce a letter of apology ?   The Plaintiff wants MONETARY compensation when all is said and done to cover his expense which can be excedingly costly.  A business doesn't spend loads of money prosecuting a tiny KJ with no money and pursue something based on an unsure lead.  How much more do you really believe Sound Choice can affordably do ?

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

gain the Copyright Act is not based on a monetary loss.  It is based on copying.  For example, a school here had a mural on on of the sides of it's building.  It depicted Disney characters.  Disney at some point learned of it and ordered their characters removed.  Was there a monetary loss.  No. The school wasn't charging any fees, etc to view it.  But alas, the characters were removed.

Steve of course evidence has to be collected in the proper manner as dictated in law (here in Canada, according to the Canadian Evidence Act, and the similar Act in the US).  Part of that is when evidence is found it can be seized, either with or without warrant as prescribed in the respective acts.

And again the manufacturers have to abide by the Copyright Act.  They cannot tell you it's ok to violate it.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I agree Tim.  I read about the Disney Case, and to be quite honest I'd have to reread it to see what the actual problem was, and see the outcome of the case. I forgot the reasoning behind the case. It was interesting, but apparently not so interesting that I recall the specifics, and what Disney was complaining about regarding improper use of one or more of it's characters.


Please tell me what the settlement determinants are based upon ? If not degree of loss to Plaintiff by an action, what does Sound Choice gain and HOW are Copyright settlements litigated ?  Do you believe Sound Choice would wish to spend 10K, for what amounts to "cease and desist" order at best ?  What is the litigant pursuing ?  How is damage calculated ?  Unless there is measureable loss you have a specious case that is de minimus.  As stated Tim, we realize anyone can attempt to sue anybody else for just about anything.  The question is "Will we win, and WHAT will we gain or lose" ?   I recall the Disney Case and need to reread how that went

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

Well Tim, as with your example when a kj is to be taken to court. then they will make them quit using the computer to KJ.

The fact is this would be a civil matter. Where they would have to prove what they would loose by you playing it from your computer. If they wanted to collect moneytary damages.

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

Also how would anyone know if a disc based show was completely legit?  Maybe they run 1 legal system with all originals for the 'public' view, but they also run several private shows with copies of the originals for each system.  Who would be able to investigate & enforce those not having published schedules?  It looks like they are legit since they have originals at their show?
Also, what if someone broke into a karaoke store & stole a complete library of originals & started using them in shows - provided no one found out, they would be considered completely legal by karaoke police because they are using all the originals.

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

There are so many factors.  For instance,  What Sound Choice might be able to litigate in California, or N. Carolina might not be something that they can pursue in Rhode Island.  Sound Choice of course is bound to multiple types of Copyrights as well, not just one.

If a case makes it to the Federal level, that of course is different. But, there's so much ambiguity here.  Only one federal case to date exists regarding Karaoke, and what do we know ?  We know there's significant AND measureable monetary damages.  So let's look at likelihoods of 1:1 ?  Another interesting concept that SHOULD be considered, and now look at likelihood and what we do or do not know about 1:1 of CD-G material..  This is quite specious.

Does this mean it can't happen ?  Nope.    But a snake can crawl up into your toilet too I suppose  

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

No I would not.  Regardless of whether he had exactly what I had or not, he is illegally selling copies for his personal gain.  He may or may not own the originals either - wouldn't matter really, I wouldn't support an illegal sale which that clearly is.  I will take the time & rip my own discs personally.

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

Agreed 100% btw,  although I was joking in my prior post to Jamkaraoke I would not exchange money and allow myself to knowingly become an accomplice in an exchange for what is LIKELY counterfeited material, BUT (and this is where it gets interesting) ignorance in such a case can show there was no intent to defraud, this is that subjective.  HOW many of the Ebayers that purchased this womans music will get arrested ?  Likely none.  This seems to be a very interesting (grey area) of  the law where UNKNOWINGLY purchasing means "intent to defraud was non-existent", hence there can't be infringement charges against a person that amount to anything. INTENT appears to be a HUGE area regarding such a court case. Lack of "intent" to defraud would likely enable a Defendants Atty to quash subpoena in such a case.

I'll admit, in my life I've been no "goody two-shoes".  Am I anymore innocent if I buy from "The White Van" ?   Do I KNOW where their inventory came from ?  Do all request proof of purchase slips, and warantee when buying from these "white vans" ?    Yet I have more than once in my past.  In life MOST take SOME degree of risk.  I wasn't born to be St. Steven, and I don't intend to be a Saint, I wish to be REASONABLE.

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

I promised myself I wasn't going to post in these copyright threads anymore, but I can't help myself.

All copyright cases are going to be litigated in federal court in the U.S.  Copyright law is federal law.  While there may be slight local variation in procedure, the substantive law (as well as related things like the law of evidence) is going to be the same whether the case is litigated in New York or Kansas.

Damages in copyright cases, assuming the copyright at issue has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, are statutory.  That is, the law spells out what the damages are for each violation without the Plaintiff having to prove any monetary loss.  This is the chief advantage of registering your copyright when your work is first created rather than relying on the copyright being recognized by operation of law after the fact--if your copyright isn't registered, you have to prove a monetary loss.  Rest assured that commercially released songs have been registered.

_________________
Reward: nine yen in drawer.