Karaoke Forums

Except for the fact that you quack investigators will say he was playing it from a computer just because they didn't see the customer give him the disc before the investigator got there.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Just how would SC go about proving what type of disc was used? They would have to call in all of the patrons and have them show their discs in court.

As a Karaoke Singer/Hobbyist, if I were to see the SC logo come up on the screen, I would not be thinking that the KJ made/created/manufactured that particular track (regardless of whether it was played from a disc or a PC). As a Karaoke Singer/Hobbyist who knows one brand from the next, all I would think is that the track was done/made/created by SC (again, regardless of what media it was played from). If anything, if I wanted to obtain that song, I would take notice of what Manufacture it was playing from (in this case, SC), and then try to find out the disc number so that I could purchase it myself. Does anyone see any CONFUSION in that???????????

If you see the same song played at the exact same time - you can see noticeable differences. Mainly the graphics on the original disc are very tight fonted & more centered on the screen while a ripped track will have edgier fonts and the graphics will tend to fill the screen as most kj's have the extended screen set to expand to width of the screen - and since most tv's now are HD 16:9 ratio and the original discs were made for the 4:3 ratio - there is no getting around the graphic differences. However when having a disc player connected to that same 16:9 aspect tv, the graphics will still remain the same - only more centered with big black bars on each side (or the same color background as the disc) but will not expand the graphics like the computer.
Now that being said anyone NOT knowing what to look for it would just look like a kj playing the song - most likely assuming that the track was from the original disc (unless the kj flat out states they don't own/use original discs).
Plus most of the kj's (actually every one that i've ever seen) that have computer usually use the ammenities in the software - marquee, next people up, little graphics that you can pop up during a songs, etc, this is a dead giveaway that a kj has their songs ripped.

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

You can set most 16:9 tvs to expand the 4:3 format to the width of the screen. It looked worse from my player than it did from the computer generated version. My screens are customizable so I can size them to a 4:3 area and do. But I do agree that the graphics are slightly different, which means I am not confused when I see a player screen versus a computer screen.

I'm trying to remember any case ( or any KJ, for that matter) where someone added SC's logo to a track after the fact......

As for whether a media shifted back-up COPY is actually a new creation by the KJ, we will have to see how media shifting plays out in court. I'mhave no opinon on that at this time-though I think downloads may well be KJ created, since no factory made product was used.

However, I do NOT believe that a KJ who shifts ( since no court has brought this to conclusion) any product that they PAID for in good faith is guilty of any wrongdoing (at least at this time), and CERTAINLY is innocent of anything that a karaoke producer ( ex, or otherwise) has to complain about. They got their money on the sale of the product- it's not stolen.

I also keep in mind the oft-posted statement that SC drops anyone who is "1:1" ( a formula that I believe will soon go out the window, BTW) will be dropped from their suit. What keeps gnawing at me is- if a person is "1:1", how could there ever have been any proof or evidence of wrongdoing that would cause them to be sued in the first place? I've never seen a realistic answer for that....

However, in our current litigous and financially frustrated society, some folks will do whatever it takes to make some money, I guess.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Don't be obtuse.

It's not "after the fact." It's "during the copying."

When the disc is inserted into the computer and read, the computer's ripping software interprets the code on the disc, converts it to another format, and writes it all--music, lyrics, logos, and everything else--to the hard drive. The host is putting SC's trademarks on the copy he made.




It's already been played out in the Supreme Court. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Your position lost.



Do you think we're just suing people who have all their discs and only media-shifted on a 1:1 basis? Do you think we're targeting people whom we know to be 1:1, just to make some money? We do sue some of those, yes. It's necessary because even at this late date people can't seem to be bothered to follow the policy. But I assure you that we make NO money on the people who pass audits. In fact, we lose money on those. I would do just about anything to ensure we never sued anyone who's 1:1, ever again. It's a waste of time and money--but it's a necessary waste because filing a suit is the only way we have to force people to follow the rules.

(I know, I know--you don't agree that those are the rules. And in support of that, you'll just make up some random principle that has no basis in the law. You're part of the problem, because you give false hope to people who would be far, far better off if they would simply follow the rules.)

I simply do not see how anyone could say, at this point, that they are acting in good faith when they duplicate their discs without getting the necessary permissions--permissions that even you have conceded we have the right to give or withhold. For more than 20 years, all of SC's original media have carried a warning against unauthorized copying. It's pretty much beyond reasonable dispute at this point.

You mean people who would be far far better off just shunning your product altogether and moving on. For more than twenty years SC has been making product, but other companies have figured out how to stay in business without this legal process of yours Jim. I don't see how SC can be said to be acting in good faith either since they are just as guilty of taking and using product that wasn't paid for, stealing from the publishers. Really with just 31 days left in the business I'm glad I decided to boycott your troublesome product, It seems it was the right business decision at least for me. Well there is still CAVS and EMI looming on the horizon you better pressure as many as these out of court settlements as you can, you are going to need the extra money when some of these other legal problems of yours demand a final payment.

Oh I agree you can set the tv to expand a 4:3 to fit a 16:9, however most will not go to that length to adjust each tv every time & then reset it & would leave the tv in whichever format is set by the club.

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

There... I corrected it for you (by adding my own line highlighted in RED.

We get to make the rules regarding consent to using our trademarks. Sorry if that bothers you, but it's the law.

Could you be more specific as to exactly when you set these rules in stone? A date (MM/DD/YYYY) would be helpful. I could swear the rules have changed so many times over the years it's hard to keep up. Depending on which one of the SC sites (do I need to explain?) you went too, you could be led to believe one thing and then visit another and be led to believe something else.

If you would skip over the "It's printed on the CD" part, I'd appreciate it. I'm just giving you a hard time Jim. I could honestly care less. What happens in court is going to happen regardless of all the banter in this forum. Isn't that why they play the games on Sunday? #NFLReference.

I just think it's going to be a tough sell in some court rooms when someone who actually owns the discs (ie: NOT A PIRATE)(ie: A REAL CUSTOMER) and who takes you to the end of the game. "Yes your Honor, I bought these discs and transferred them to my PC for ease of use. Here they are right here". "This SC site said it was OK. They even sold a device themselves saying this was the wave of the future". No your Honor, I didn't realize when they went out of business that they would change their own rules and not tell anyone before they sued me. I was busy running a business with the product I bought from them in "Good Faith".

I don't need an explanation from anyone as to why I'm wrong or what is law ... I'll wait ... something is bound to give sooner or later. Holdem' or Foldem' I always say.

Well put James. The ones who make stuff up like Joe continue to misinform the readership which is definitely part of the problem and hopefully, by taking the time to point out his inaccuracies, should lend some assurance that readers really shouldn't listen to Joe's posts.

_________________
-- Mark

Pot meet kettle.....Insane your name suits Y-O-U.....is your last name nocredibilitywhatsoever? Sorry...hypocrites tend to make me hurl a little...

Guess they WON'T be confused after the KJ has been audited, paid a fee and buys the GEM series. I call total BS on the whole thing because of that single concept.

Just to say it out loud: in general and in theory, this is correct, as long as said rules are themselves legal.

The entire law suit process is to create an environment of FEAR. When Sound Choice loses a case in court, like the Karaoke Kandy Store case, the level of fear begins to diminish which lowers the chance of KJ's settling out of court. In order to counteract that process, Jim and Insane and people of that ilk, have to come up with something else to try to create more fear among the masses....a new boogie man so to speak.

How long can it be before someone is selling hard drives loaded with what used to look like Sound Choice karaoke tracks but now they look completely different and all of the Sound Choice logos have been removed? What will they file law suits for then? No trade dress infraction. No logo infraction. No intention of trying to mislead the public into thinking that these are original Sound Choice tracks, whatsoever. Things that make you go Hmmmm.

James and SC have been using the confused approach long before Karaoke Kandy.

It's good to know that Joe's hypocrisy makes you hurl as well. I'm just the opposite side of the spectrum of the angry little man, who I assume, made you hurl as well with his hypocrisy.

At least my OP reported the latest in a karaoke piracy lawsuit with citations to allow the readership to draw their own conclusions past my snippets, which is unlike the others.

Credibility can only be brought forth by backing up claims, not obtuse spew ala JoeObtuse.

Carry on....

_________________
-- Mark

This is like saying a crime ring that makes exact duplicates of iPhone and iPads won't be sued as long as they leave off the Apple logo.