Karaoke Forums

your concern is exactly why i asked the question i did, and it was quickly answered that there is no requirement to sign away your rights to get an audit anymore. it is unfortunate that this has become the biggest thing to discuss, and i unfortunately fell into it as well hoping for a bit of clarity in the mire of gray law, non-existent law, and purposely vague SC methods and reasonings (i do understand they must be that way for the sake of the investigation). SC is sticking their nose in a place in our businesses that we don't usually open to the public. i know there are only a few people who i have let rifle through my own disk collection. when any entity wants access to private points in our lives, weather we have something to hide or not, we as humans tend to clam up and want to know exactly why you want to see that.
example: Kurt has already stated that the letters of intent do not disclose all information they have against whomever it was sent to, and legally they are not required to do so (according to Mr. Slep). however, if we do not fully disclose ALL information that he is asking from US, then WE are on our way to court.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

The only thing we should have to disclose would be the discs in question that were observed being played at our show, and nothing more. I think that all of us would have no problem with that, unless you really are a pirate and do not own the discs. Once you can prove you own the discs and only the discs in question, should be the end of it. If Sound Choice has indeed changed their aproach, certainly most of us would be willing to comply.

KJathena stated that they didn't go after all of her collection and that they only asked for certain discs and tracks. Maybe those tracks were observed being played.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

The personal liberties issue bothers me somewhat also. But those concerned about it need to lobby or go through a court case to get an ultimate decision that allows shiftig to computer for commercial use. Because at the moment, if you are using a computer, SC has cause to come after you. Those that want an audit aren't doing it to give up personal liberties. They are looking at the law and making a business decision to enter into a conenant not to sue so that they can continue with computer use.

And yes--there are some who are giving up a bit of their autonomy because they feel the price to pay is small if it helps to rid their area of pirates. We decided to register with Safe Harbor because there was no fee and if the program actually did bring awareness to our area then we would have some free advertising and a way to show we would be "safe" to hire. It may or may not pan out but the risk seemed miniscule compared to a possible gain. We only have 461 discs at the moment and all of our receipts and our songlist is on the internet. It would be nothing to show we were legit so we decided to see what comes of it all. It is nothing compared to the hoops we jumped through for the business licenses, etc.

If the cop is suspicious of something, i'd give them consent to search my car as well. Nothing to hide. Inconvenient? Sure! But to deny a search would be worse.

Rights are just that, some feel they are above other rights and this goes for kj's as well. They don't have permission to move their cdg's over to computer in the first place, however when SC says hey, you might fall under a letter of intent, if that happens show your original discs & you'll be fine, we won't sue you for copying our work/trademark to another format that was not authorized - kj's STILL get up in arms about it. Kj's still seem to forget that part.

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

There's at least two companies in VA trying to do exactly that.

One week before the trial date was due to be set SC had their suits dismissed without prejudice. No explanation given for why they were dropped.

Two weeks later SC had filed new suits, of which the language was identical to the original filing. Now a trial date won't get set until early next year.

Given the potential reward, why would SC want to delay taking these KJ's to court? They're not only willing, but eager to bring this to trial. They WANT it to happen as quickly as possible.

. . .

_________________
Dave's not here.

That is extremely interesting news but I am wondering how that would translate into being a suit about allowing computer use. Aren't the suits based on transferring the trademark without paying for the use of it and not about the transfer itself? I understand that the transfer to computer is the foot in the door for checking but the ultimate complaint is that the right to use the trademark wasn't paid for in the first place.

I could see SC not wanting a decision on computer use right away as it takes away their leverage for requesting audits. But ultimately I can see them wanting it legalized because it would allow them to be more competitive with overseas manufacturers that allow downloading, etc.

I don't think we will ever see SC go to trial because of a couple problems, that I see anyway. 1, Depending on the song, they can't even be sure which disc is the problem as they have included some songs on multiple discs. Which disc did I pirate? Pick one and hope that I don't have it, because you don't get a second guess. 2, copyright infringement doesn't fly, either the discs are sold for use in public or they are not. Their choice here is to say "All SC discs with the RED logo are not licensed for public display, only the BLUE GEM series discs are kosher." doesn't matter about 1:1 or not. If that's not the case then they do not have a leg to stand on IMO. It's already been established that the consumer has the right to copy files to a computer to archive say a CD and then play that file while the original is kept in a place of protection. So whether SC gives you permission is a moot point IMO. And just because I caused their copyrighted logo to be displayed in public without using the physical disc is not probable cause to think I pirated said disc.

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

You're sort of missing the point entirely. Yes, declining a search is more inconvenient than submitting to one. But, as I said before, some things are profoundly more important than convenience.

Is the only purpose behind protections against search and seizure (warrants, etc.) to protect criminals? If not, why is it not okay, or is simply less desirable in some way, for an innocent to refuse to be searched? What's the point of having that right at all, if its use is shunned and relegated to near uselessness? When is it okay, or encouraged, for an innocent to exercise their right? Or is its only purpose for criminals?

Yes, I know the usual rote response is "it's okay for an innocent to refuse a search, but if they've got nothing to hide, they're just wasting their time, and should have just submitted to a search in the first place." Right. Back to ground zero.

If that kind of viewpoint were actually prevalent, I seriously question whether there'd be any protections whatsoever in this country against search and seizure. If no one had anything to hide, what's the point, right?

I know I said this before, but it really does come down to the nature of personal liberty, and one's perspective (or, more accurately, world view) on the importance, or lack thereof, of privacy and freedom. Whichever side your world view falls on dictates how you respond to the aforementioned scenario.

Thus, continuing the debate seems like it'd bear little or no fruit. I've found that opinions are easy to shift, shape, enhance, modify, or completely dispel. World views, on the other hand, are nearly impossible to influence in any way through brief conversation and debate. An exercise in futility.

About number 2, the 'red' discs themselves are fine for commercial (public display) use provided the venues paid the proper licensing agencies (ASCAP and the likes). They were never intended to be copied to computer. The new GEM series is also for for commercial use for computer users. It is sold in that format, nothing is being shifted from one format to another.
That being said, they do state that is you have all the original discs to back up what you have on your computer (most likely through an audit) while they cannot condone it, they will not go after you legally. Since most computer users do not keep their discs on site at the show, there is no way to determine whether a computer user is legal or not - which is why they send those letters to begin with. If you have the discs, show them & be on your merry way. If not, then is when the trouble for the kj begins.

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

I disagree. It is really the way in which you deny the search. You can do it without causing a problem.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/watch-it ... th-police/

I drive perhaps a bit faster than the average bear, and I get stopped pretty often. I not only rarely get a ticket, I usually even escape a warning. I don't have anything to hide other than my speedometer readings, but I don't intend to have anyone search my car without probable cause.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Normally they wouldn't ask unless they had probable cause - maybe they saw an open beer container in your back seat - you didn't know it was there. Or you just hit a skunk & they smell it as a possible drug. I have never been asked to be searched ever when pulled over, but would not deny one.
Same feelings go with my karaoke discs. You want to see them, there they are - which one you want to see. I am one that actually has them on site (you've seen them ).

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

You missed my point, which is exactly what SC is counting on. They can't say "Our discs were not made to be copied to a computer", because as we already know, the law allows us to do exactly that. They are saying that but suing for copyright infringement for publicly displaying their logo. The logo can either be displayed or it can't. They take a public display of their logo with the use of a computer and extrapolate that to justify going on a fishing expedition to find out if the KJ is a pirate. They are using scare tactics to cause pirates to buy their GEM series discs, nothing more. If someone actually stood up to them in court following normal civil procedure, I highly doubt that the case would ever go to trial.

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Well this is a grey area as it is ok for personal use, but no law specifically stating it's ok for commercial use.
Nothing wrong with that either, again they are just trying to recoup their moneys lost to piracy and if they can 'scare' a pirate into purchasing the GEM series to become legal, then more power to them. Most 'pirates' will either do just that or quit altogether - or worst case, continue to work until they are brought to court. As far as I know the last hasn't actually happened yet.

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

No, it's not a grey area, courts have recognized the right to copy a disc for archiving. A disc contains nothing but 0's and 1's so whether it's a karaoke disc doesn't matter.



And I doubt it ever will.

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Right, but nowhere does it state for commercial use.

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

That is not true. Again, if whatever is on the disc is licensed for commercial use, then it is okay to use for commercial use. Does Microsoft make you insert a disc into your computer every time you want to use Windows?

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Lonman is probably referring to a case about MP3 players--vs Diamond or something? It was found that a home user should be allowed to switch their purchased music to a different format in order to give it "portability." But that case stated that the ruling applied to home use and commercial use was yet to be decided. Many have decided that other precedents should give commercial users the same privilege but I can't remember ever seeing a specific case where it was actually challenged and won.

Can you see where SC would have a problem with that.
Ok if you show on the night.

Yes sir. Buy the discs that contain these songs and show us them and we are happy.

Yes SC feel cheated out of money.
Who here would not try and do something about it if it was you at the helm.

They are a business.
They do business. Not charity.

I would not like an audit.
Then I don't like it when someone steals from ME.
Do you?

Like it.
FOR COMMERCIAL USE.
I will buy it.

Just tell me where.