Karaoke Forums

Just to be clear, the statement about an archive copy was made in 1998 and referred to CDs only. Anyone who can demonstrate reliance prior to 2007 on that statement--specifically with respect to backup CDs made--and strict compliance with the policy articulated in that statement will be released from the litigation. I have yet to see where we have sued even a single defendant solely on the basis of playing from archive CDs, and we've certainly not had anyone come forward asserting that they relied on and complied with that policy.

The legend (which has been printed on every CDG SC ever manufactured) does state that the discs are not for public performance without authorization, but what that means is that the performance rights fees must be paid (to ASCAP, BMI & SESAC, as applicable).

No, Joe. The defendants in question were caught with counterfeits of tracks across three of their own systems for which they had no corresponding discs, for which they only had one corresponding disc, and for which they only had two corresponding discs. The only "distribution" of those tracks occurred between related companies under common control and to the customers of those companies for use in the shows.

No, what's proven is that SC initiated a suit against them based upon evidence that they had conducted a media shift (a trademark infringement) without the necessary permission, and that SC dropped them because SC's interest is in pursuing not media-shifting per se--as long as the KJ complies with the policy shortly after the suit--but piracy (operation outside strict 1:1 correspondence).

That is why we refer to it as a technical infringement. It is an infringement, but if the KJ meets the most important criterion of the media-shifting policy and agrees to comply quickly with the other parts, we will not pursue the lawsuit. There is nothing unethical about initiating that type of lawsuit.

Per your own words, you would not have any evidence of media shifting without permission until you sue, which THEN initiates the proccess of discovery.

On top of that, the suit might be dropped if the the KJ is "1:1". I find this strange because being 1:1 has absolutely nothing to do with whether the KJ ever seeked permission from SC or the music owner/publishers to media shift their products.

Since -as you have stated- suing is the only way to get actual evidence ( which SC claims is why they do it), then there is none PRIOR to the suit. SC WOULD be suing without any hard evidence of wrongdoing at all. This IS unethical.

Also, if a suit is dropped because the KJ is "1:1", do you still notify interested parties of the media shifting of THEIR product, or do you turn a blind eye?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

It seems to me that even if it is legal for them to "audit" that they would only legally be allowed to audit their "own" material. I guess proving someone passed info on to another "interested party" would be difficult to prove, but maybe not impossible...

The media shift without permission is easily proven. The host is using a 1:1 harddrive and no discs in sight. SC has NO RECORD of that host having permission to be 1:1. That is the technical infringement there. To ensure that it is indeed 1:1, they sue and have a Discovery. It will be at that time when it will be discovered whether it is 1:1 or not.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Answer?.........

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Don't hold your breath Joe.

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

They state 'unauthorized' public performance. In order to actually use them in a show, the fees that need to be paid are by the club to the ASCAP/BMI/SESAC...etc. making it an authorized public performance. No rules were changed regarding this.

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

And even with that said, isn't their a statue of limitations on any written 'contract' if that's what they want to consider it. A site I found said something to the fact that every state has one - anywhere from 3 years to 10 years depending, if that's the case, then this little snippet of something written over 13 years ago wouldn't hold up against anything. And being it is a forum where anyone could sign up using any name, this could have been someone just using Kurts name - how does anyone even know if that WAS who they said they were when they wrote it? No way to prove it.
Also if I recall, there was more to that snippet that was never bothered to be copied which included the statement (something to the effect) "If I saw a kj using a full book of burned discs - i'd suspect piracy. If I saw just a couple burned discs, i'd assume backup". May not be the exact quote as again it was over 13 years ago, but it was something along that line.

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