Karaoke Forums

Well, well.... Isn't this interesting....

When it comes to licensing, the lead attorney for sound choice is suggesting that you really shouldn't take anyone's word on the matter and as a paying customer, you should demand more:


Unless of course, you are purchasing from Sound Choice in which case you should just hand them money and shut up about it, or go elsewhere:


Of course we won't bring up the gem series... where the KJ must indemnify SC against any actions by "third party copyright holders" and where they have prepared their product in a format specifically for violating the copyright laws and then encourage you to do so.... In the event that you do "get sued" after purchasing this product from them, there is in fact, NO WHERE "to turn."

Why not just say; "Hand me $20 and watch my left hand while I slap the snot out of you with my right?"

As I have said before, context matters. Go back and read the part you chopped out.







The GEM series license agreement does not contain any such provision. Is it OK to call that a lie, or would that be "name-calling"?



The product is not "in a format specifically for violating the copyright laws," so your premise is flawed.

Of course, you yourself said that you've never heard of a music publisher suing a KJ:



Why are you worried about a KJ having "NO WHERE 'to turn'" if there is no need to turn?

So what you're saying is only demand "a higher level" if the manufacturer is located outside the borders? Baloney. The publishers are located here too. Your only solution is punitive: wait until you get sued FIRST, to do something about it.... My position is preventative: there would be no reason at law to sue in the first place.


First, some background:

And the word you would sneak into the boilerplate disclaimer:


Your own agreement is vague enough to allow you to lease infringing materials and you're protected from being sued by the KJ. It certainly appears to me that this looks like an "indemnification."



So your position is that KJ's shouldn't care if a manufacturer is doing something illegal AS LONG AS no one has been sued for it.... yet? How "honorable" is that?

I think just about every KJ has some discs that they are pretty sure were produced without the manufacturer paying for any licenses. I would also bet that most of the SC Cheerleaders are still using them. How many people have thrown out their ALL HITS, HELLUVA and BACKSTAGE discs?

And with no manufacturer to contact to verify licensing, most of those same KJ's purchased them from brick and mortar stores "in good faith."

The difference here of course is that while even Harrington says that you "should demand a higher level of proof that the product is legal," it doesn't include his own client. His rational is that "if you get sued, you know who to turn to." Why should you have to wait until you get sued? You should be able to ensure that your business is not only legal, but fully protected against any such lawsuits against you or your venues before they ever occur.

HarringtonLaw is apparently unwilling or unable to hold his own client to the very same high standards that he believes KJ's should demand from manufacturers.

Sorry, but that's not good enough for me and I smell a rat - your mileage may vary.

What happens if the ivestigator witnesses a KJ playing a song from his hard drive and the song is from SC8125? There was a lot in the paper work from that Las Vegas motion about having to have clean hands.

Why can't The Eagles demand an audit to show that Sound Choice has licensed every song that they have ever produced like Sound Choice expects all of it's customers to go through?

If a Sound Choice investigator sees a particular song being played from a PC; Sound Choice should only be able to seek proof that the KJ owns that particular song on an original disc.

If Sound Choice, at some point , gave permission to media shift, they shouldn't be able to make someone pay for the privilege of something the created years before they decided to change their mind.

If I own a classic car that didn't come with seat belts; I wonder if I can get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt or am I grandfathered in? Am I supposed to change something on a classic car that would lessen the value of said car?

I would like to think that if someone ripped their discs to their hard drive 10 years ago; they too would be grandfathered in and Sound Choice can't turn around and charge you for what you did 10 years ago when they gave you permission to do so.

Just like the city can't come to your house and force you to install hard wired smoke alarms unless you file for a construction permit to do an upgrade. Another example is handicapped bathrooms in commercial establishments. If you have owned a business for a long time, you don't have to make sure that your bathrooms are in accord with the Americans with Disabilities Act. You also don't have to build a ramp so someone in a wheel chair can get into your establishment. However, if you decide to do a re-model of any substance, you will have to bring your business up to the current ADA codes.

You can't do what you used to be able to do but you can't be forced by the government to up-grade an existing building to meet the new codes as far as access is concerned anyway.

You can't tell me that it's OK to transfer my tracks to a hard drive and then after I spend hundreds of hours doing just that; turn around and tell me that you want me to destroy my hard drive tracks or delete them....just like the government can't tell me to knock my business building down to the ground and rebuild it and adhere to the new ADA codes in mind.

I have just one more analogy. If you live in a community that has some by laws limiting the color choices for painting your house and you decide to paint your house PURPLE because it is one of the colors on the list; the people on the executive committee can not turn around after you have painted your house PURPLE and tell you to paint it a different color because they have re-written the by laws and PURPLE is no longer on the list of acceptable colors. They may be able to stop you from painting your house PURPLE again in the future but they can't make you remove or cover the PURPLE paint immediately.

When Sound Choice gave permission to allow KJs to media shift in the past; there were no conditions laid down as far as having to submit to any audits and there were no time limits on how long that you could use those files.

I also believe that when these warnings were placed on karaoke discs about commercial use; they were referring to making copies and selling them or renting them or distributing them to others. I don't think that they care about using them in a bar or a restaurant as they were intended to be used in the first place; but that is just my opinion, but I'd sure like to see someone bring that up in a court room.

Regular music CD's are used in bars all of the time by DJs and that would certainly be a commercial venture for the DJ. The DJs routinely convert their CDs to digital files and use them in their DJ businesses without any interference from the music publishers. Now if these DJs were making copies of the same discs and they were selling them in their music store; that would be the type of commercial use that is being referred to in Sound Choice's warnings. Let the debate begin. I think that any judge would determine that the fair use of CDs is no different than the fair use of the CD+Gs.

Sound Choice's people continue screaming from the mountain tops that it is not fair use; but that doesn't make it law. It only makes it their opinion and it is in their best interest to get as many people as possible to believe that it is THE LAW.

Can't wait for the first case to get to trial and have a judge decides for good what is legal and what is not legal as far as CD+Gs are concerned in regard to fair use.

Nothing to debate. SC has no grounds or basis for collecting damages. It's all noise anyway.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

"When Sound Choice gave permission to allow KJs to media shift in the past; there were no conditions laid down as far as having to submit to any audits and there were no time limits on how long that you could use those files."

here comes the argument that they never specified what format was allowed and they "meant" cd to cd only.

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

I believe you're right. And it stems from them wanting to exercise some type of control so that they can continue to sue KJ's. If you point out that the object of the exercise of making a "copy" was to protect your investment in the first place and they know that, then suddenly the form of that copy becomes important to them and they'll say; "we meant CD to CD only."

And in all seriousness, what does it matter? A copy is a copy and as long as there aren't two of them, who cares?

Well, I have several. First after its been pointed out that SC and CB material was used, I am not continuing to support those brands with money. Of course I have no way of telling if this AVI site is providing royalties back for song purchases or not. I can assume all I want but I have a 50\50 shot at getting it right. Sunfly is usually a last resort for me and I have better sources for those with easier terms.

At $1.99 I can get better versions, IMO almost all the way around for the same or better price.

But to hit on the point you want me to hit on, I suppose I'm a somewhat informed KJ and not because I set out to be. I never dreamed all this BS was going on out there. Knowing means I have to make a judgement for myself now on whether these are "legal" or not. As I usually do look for a statement and there isn't one, I would assume these are quite shady with regard to the standards I currently feel are in place, but I feel those standards may change soon and some of the Manus may not like it one bit. So at the current time I would have to pass. BUT, there are probably 1000s of KJs out there that have no clue about what's going on and they probably wouldn't think twice about buying from them.

But I think there is a possibility that these MAY end up being more legal than the ones that are currently "offered". And this is just me thinking out loud with all of these things needing to fall in place.

IF many\several of the manus did not gain the proper permissions and pay the proper royalties for their "reworks" then their "reworks" could be considered counterfeit. If those "reworks" are deemed to be counterfeits their copyrights would probably be worthless.

IF this site HAS asked for permission and DOES pay royalties back to the original copyright holder for their "reworks" (and it appears they have done at least some of their own rework) then they may end up being more legal than the stuff on the CDs. It's not my call and I think we may find out at least part of the real story pretty soon. But there HAS to be a reason they haven't sought to protect copyrights.

MrBoo every manufacturer says they are legit, even the ones producing no music. If you've ever purchased anything from a thrift store, flea market, yard sale, craigslist, etc., the last thing on your mind is whether or not the person who sells it has the legal rights to sell it to you.

I quoted a school this past week for a karaoke party for the school. One of the questions she asked me was whether my karaoke tracks were legal. I told her I had purchased all the karaoke music I have, she then asked if I had a certificate? I said I don't need a certificate. No seeing as there are several Sound Choice "certified" kjs in my market, where do you think she got those questions to ask?

By the way, I booked the party for a premium price, so much for certification.

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s antique furniture to your iPhone 4.

At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.

Put simply, though Apple Inc. AAPL -1.07% has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.

That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

“It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups.”

Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale.

It could be your personal electronic devices or the family jewels that have been passed down from your great-grandparents who immigrated from Spain. It could be a book that was written by an American writer but printed and bound overseas, or an Italian painter’s artwork.

There are implications for a variety of wide-ranging U.S. entities, including libraries, musicians, museums and even resale juggernauts eBay Inc. EBAY -1.52% and Craigslist. U.S. libraries, for example, carry some 200 million books from foreign publishers.

“It would be absurd to say anything manufactured abroad can’t be bought or sold here,” said Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment lawyer and Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation who specializes in technology issues.

The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng’s college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to America in 1997 to study at Cornell University. When he discovered that his textbooks, produced by Wiley, were substantially cheaper to buy in Thailand than they were in Ithaca, N.Y., he rallied his Thai relatives to buy the books and ship them to him in the United States.

He then sold them on eBay, making upward of $1.2 million, according to court documents.

Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement. Kirtsaeng countered with the first-sale doctrine.

I know the manus have said to trust them and that it isn't any of our business. But I haven't heard of a case where an original copyright holder has questioned manus and lost. From what I understand, the judgement recently against what was CB specifically stated otherwise with regard to their permissions, authorizations, licensing or royalties paid (one or all of those?).

You seem to be of the impression that we have not had a case go to trial.

Just more propaganda, if you ask me. If some judge would have issued a ruling on whether or not a person could copy his own karaoke music for back up or ease of use; I believe EVERYONE on these karaoke forums would have heard about it. You seem to be the only on e tooting that particular horn and you think that everyone will believe you just because you went to law school....because lawyers are the people with the best reputations for honesty, right?

Bruce, as it has been stated before you can legally copy your discs for PERSONAL use. You want to copy and use them in your home or car that is perfectly fine. BTW blasting it our of your car is not broadcasting. Broadcasting and its definition comes under the realm of the FCC. The problem arises when you copy for professional use and a karaoke show in a public venue is a professional use.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

See, Bruce, the thing is, you don't have to believe me.

The case number is 5:11cv32 from the Northern District of Florida (www.flnd.uscourts.gov). Trial was held on 7/2/2012 and 7/3/2012.

You can argue that the result of that trial doesn't undermine your conclusion, but you can't say that it didn't exist.

And where does it say this on the CD On the CD I bought, it says UNAUTHORIZED DUPLICATION, PUBLIC PERFORMANCE, OR BROADCAST IS A VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAWS

So I hope you are not using your SC disk in public without authorization, cause you are violating the law