Karaoke Forums

I very seriously doubt Soundchoice would intentionally mislead their customers to increase sales. Although I have never seen it brought up in this forum, if someone were audited and had Soundchoice tracks that they did not have a disc for but said they purchased it via download when it was available, that SC would overlook those tracks. UNLESS and only UNLESS, they could prove the tracks were played in a commercial setting. Having that track on their harddrive does not mean it was ever played during a commercial show right? It wouldn't be illegal to store it along with other tracks that were legal as long as you didn't use it illegally.

And just for the record ... I don't need to show my receipt to prove I bought an item unless someone else can show proper proof that they were the rightful owners. You can accuse me of stealing your T.V. and I don't need a receipt to prove I didn't steal it. If you can show your receipt and a copy of the serial # belonging to that T.V. then I am in trouble without a bill of sale. My point obviously is that I don't need to have a receipt showing I paid for that download unless you can prove I didn't.

So what you are saying is that anyone who bought and PAID FOR SOUND CHOICE AUTHORIZED DOWNLOADS screwed themselves, and SC should go after them because they don't have the discs?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Uh huh. The problem is, the sites that SC AUTHORIZED never said that use in a karaoke show would result in litigation from SC, DID THEY?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

OK, no one seems to have caught on to the glitch in this thread, so I guess it's "throw it in your face" time.



SC's (weak beyond all belief) litigation is based on media shifting their trademark without permission.

Whatever I feel about download based hosts, the fact is download based hosts DO NOT MEDIA SHIFT. It is shifted prior to the download, which is a direct media to media transfer. In the case of SC authorized sites- which were plentiful, this means that the media was not only shifted before the download, but that it was shifted with full authorization from SC. In other words, no matter where or how it is used, SC AUTHORIZED the shift before the KJ downloaded. Also, as stated above, SC has no authorization or permission to define usage.

In other words, since SC AUTHORIZED the media shift of their logo BEFORE the download, any download based host, when confronted by SC, can tell them to screw off with impunity if they have the receipts to show in court. This whether SC considers receipts viable or not.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe, those downloads were licensed for private home use only. They were not licensed for commercial use. We have never said downloads weren't offered. We have said they were never offered for commercial use. If you use a downloaded SC track in a commercial show, you are violating the terms of use of that track.[/quote]


Bull- period. Even discs are technically for home use. They were offeredas all karaoke tracks are, and hosts bought them for show use. SO- Are the receipts for those downloads good, or are the hosts- paying customers, such as Toqer- who originally threw a HUGE amount of support to SC- going to be screwed as far as SC is concerned? In other words, if you audit a host who has a bunch of SC downloads, will you screw him/her over or honor their receipts as The paying SC customer that they are?

Yes or no? Please. If you plan on equivocating and wriggling, please don't even bother to answer- we'll get it ...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

A host who uses downloaded, private-use-only SC tracks to put on a commercial karaoke show will be treated as an infringer and dealt with accordingly.

Joe, let's say you go to Amazon and purchase a downloadable film (making you a "customer" of the movie studio). Nothing illegitimate about the transaction. Then you take your copy of the film and go down to a bar, and the bar owner pays you $100 to show your copy of the film on a big screen, and they bill it as movie night, free popcorn, two-drink minimum.

The Amazon terms of service say "private home exhibition only."

How many times could you do this before the movie studios had a problem with it?

And if they did, do you think they would, or would not, have a leg to stand on?

Let me see if I can try to ask the right question: What is the difference in licensing between the two that separates one into a "private/home use only" and the, I am guessing, "public and/or private/home use only" versions? Having that answer might help put things in perspective...

The root of it is the licensing that the music publishers grant to the karaoke producers.

Until recently, the music publishers had never authorized any karaoke producer to offer downloadable content except restricted to home use.

The water has gotten muddied somewhat lately, and I can tell you that having spoken to decisionmakers at three major music publishing groups this week, there is a disconnect between what they say they have authorized and what is being offered currently.

However, with respect to SC content, this is it: If you have SC tracks that you downloaded, whether by purchase or not, those tracks MAY NOT BE USED for commercial purposes, which would include any karaoke show for which you are paid and any karaoke show for which you are not paid but for which the purpose is to induce the transfer of money or other consideration from one person to another (like a charitable fundraiser, or to attract paid admissions to a fair, for example). They are not authorized for that purpose.

Use it all you like for unpaid, private use.

It might be interesting to see what would happen if someone were to draw into question just what might lie in the void of this "disconnect". It would seem that if there is a legal gray area, one cannot just come up with a policy to cover that area, like a wet toilet paper blanket. I have stated before that businesses everywhere operate at some point in the gray areas that exist in various aspects of their operation...it is virtually impossible to regulate every possible scenario that might arise.

I remember reading from a link on here about the case that determined that karaoke is labeled an "audio-visual work". It is not difficult to see that some of the legal positions have been derived from this classification. I wonder if this assessment was concluded out of some need to put it under a classification that already existed. Given the interactive nature of karaoke, it seems to me that it goes beyond the nature of standard audio-visual works (television, films, etc.). I could see the potential Pandora's box that cold have been opened by giving karaoke it's own classification! One could almost conclude that the negative stigma put on karaoke (American Idol judges calling less than stellar performances "karaoke-ish", et. al.) might have deterred the courts from giving these decisions more consideration...

Using this logic, you could argue that a CD is "pre-shifted" because it was pressed using audio from somewhere else. Whatever media trail a piece of music took before you bought the retail product is irrelevant.

What I am saying right this moment is that everyone here should have a basic understanding of the difference between a physical object and data. Even my kids understand how that applies to ownership, possession, and what a receipt for either one represents.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

The question from this might be: Should there be a difference? Ownership of an object ["physical", digital, subliminal, criminal (anyone picking up on the Supertramp reference here???)], should all be treated the same...they are all implements to accomplish a task...

Joe, I have not gone to the various sites authorized to have SC downloadable tracks available, but I am pretty sure that any of them would have the disclaimer included about the SC downloads not being allowed for commercial use.

Well Bazza, you are the one that disagreed with me, and claimed that downloads are factory original music. OK, then have it your way, but if they are then the logo was an authorized media shift, and the KJ didn't do the shifting. That's per YOUR STATEMENT that downloads are factory original.

So, per YOUR statement, a download host can't be sued for media shifting a logo without permission because :

A) Whoever shifted it was authorized by SC, if they were one of SC's authorized sites (and I have proven that they existed) or it was done at SC for distribution to said sites.

B) The KJ never media shifted the logo.

If YOUR "factory original" download scenario is correct, then the above MUST BE as well. Can't have it both ways.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe, you are confused by the technology. Of course a download is a "factory original", just as buying a CD is a "factory original". Please see my quote above. "Whatever media trail a piece of music took before you bought the retail product is irrelevant."

You buy a product in whatever form it is in. The delivery method of the audio is irrelevant, whether you buy a SD card with an MP3+G on it, get a GEM disc with an MP3+G on it, or download that MP3+G from a site. They are all MP3+G's.

You also buy music with certain rights, CD or MP3. There is no "pre-shifting" going on by shadowy agents. You get what you buy and with the rights specified at that time. If you download a song from a home use only site....that's what you get, even though that very same song may have different rights via another distribution method.

The debate of "factory original" in this context moot. The manufacturer/distributor determines the format and validity of the product, not us. When in doubt, contact them.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Disagree. The very LAST person one asks is the one who sold it to you, or is trying to do so.

This goes for karaoke, cars, washing machines, or anything else. If there is a legal question, one asks legal counselfor whom YOUR best interest is the priority.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

In the long run, I believe looking for counsel with THE LAW as the best interest is preferable...hopefully what is legal (or even not illegal) would be in one's best interest...

If you have a lawyer telling you that a music download is something other than a legitimate, original product, you have a Luddite lawyer that does not understand technology.