Karaoke Forums

I'm not trying to be dense here, and I know you have explained it multiple times over the last 3 or 4 years (at least). I follow what you are trying to convey, but I still find the concept difficult to comprehend and accept. That probably makes this particular conversation go full circle to 4 or 5 years ago.

As a Singer, that wouldn't matter to me. If I were to see a song come up on a screen (with the SC logo and everything else that followed), I might go up to the KJ and ask, "Which SC disc number was that, because I want to get one for myself." It wouldn't matter to me whether the KJ played that from an original CDG or if he played it from a Burn of that CDG, or if he played it from his HD. Sound-wise, I wouldn't know (or be able to tell) the difference. I don't see anything being deceptive or confusing about the fact that a SC track was played, other than if the KJ was just an outright Pirate, and (IMO) he's not being deceptive to the Audience or the Venue that hired him (unless he was directly asked if he purchased all of his tracks through legitimate distributors), just to the Manufacturers.

Key edit here.... As it was pointed out by Paradigm, the only other confusion there would be, is if the KJ were selling those tracks to others. Then, others MIGHT think they were buying a legit product (I said MIGHT), as vs a pirated copy.

I think you answered the question yourself quite succinctly. You may not care, but you were confused and believed what you sang off was legit. Would you care that the Rolex that you paid $200 for was fake as long as it worked? I bet the Rolex people would care if it were real or not.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

key words here.
how much did you pay to sing that SC song at another karaoke show?
i could see if we were selling copies, that makes sense for confusion, but all we are doing is letting someone listen to it at no charge for 4 minutes. what is the confusion? who would know it's not off a disc? who would think any less of it because they find it's not on a disc? do you refuse to sing at computer based shows because they are using inferrior hard drives over discs or do you just sing? if the arangement of an SC track at a hard drive show is good are you going to not buy it because it was MP3, or are you looking for the best arangement?

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

You mean just like the unresolved cases on SC's various dockets, we don't know what the conclusion to those will be either? Yet the SC supporters have already labeled the defendants pirates, since SC wouldn't have charged them if they had been innocent. If SC loses, so what, you'll still continue to buy their product. Would you tim continue to associate with a host or entertainment company if they were found guilty of pirating? You being of such high principles how could continue to do business with a company that has lost it's aura of holiness, they have been defrocked?

What I take personally is the double standard and hypocrisy displayed by some hosts. If small unorganized piracy is bad then large scale organized piracy has to be worse just like organized crime is worse. If I'm obsessed with SC, how many hosts are obsessed with locale pirates stealing their business? Some have become so paranoid that they think there is one doing a gig beneath their bed or out in their garage.

Don't worry tim if SC follows form they will make a settlement and have their insurance company pay off EMI, if things turn against them. Then Jim will come on here and say there is nothing to it, the big mean insurance company made them settle. We wanted to fight the charges but they threw in the towel. We could have been a contender, now we will never return to new production, well it is better to be a has been than a never was I guess.

Paradigm, once again it DOES NOT matter if money exchanged hands or not. That is not an element of the offence of infringement.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Lone, so who ever said that those that have been sued were guilty? I know I haven't and I don't recall anyone else saying so, other than you and maybe a couple of others who are anti-SC. Maybe you'd like to show us who did. I've been around long enough to know that someone being sued or charged with an offence isn't automatically guilty. Now many of us have said SC is within their rights to sue people for infringement.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

That's right Paradigm it's a matter of honor not money!

If that is the case tim then why is the purpose of the legal process recovery of money?

It reminds me of an old saying "honor, the word tumbles lightly from the mouth of one that has none".

Of course they are far to subtle to come out and say they are pirates. Still hosts like myself are accused of being pirates or pirate supporters merely for questioning SC's recovery process. I'm not anti SC per say, I don't understand why of all the manus alive or dead they have to go the legal process recovery route. It could be that other manus know their own hands aren't clean and getting involved legally would harm them more than help them. Anyone can sue anyone in this country whether it is right or wrong. It is an old means of obtaining money from defendants to tie them up in court unless they settle. Justice has nothing to do with it, it is only business.

You seem to me to be pro big business from what you have posted. I'm not I support the working man and a living wage for all that want to work.

Again, you seem to have some very bizarre double standards. Elvis can sue, but SC cannot?! Both made recordings, using session musicians and singers, in a recording studio, of other peoples songs. And in your words, both are "a copy of the original underlying product". The only difference is that the SC work had the addition of lyrics and sync!

Please explain why one recording artist is perfectly OK to sue and other is not. In detail please. We are dieing to know this truth.

Of course, you have already told us why. Because you see a karaoke song as not having equal weight. Brushed off as an "imitation" as you often say. Only 3/5 of a real song. Yet, by your own logic and words Elvis simply imitated the song from the original as well and that's OK. Double standard.



And by your own words and admission, neither is Elvis.

SC songs are extremely high quality recordings by highly skilled musicians and vocalists. SC recordings are so good they sound exactly like the originals in most cases. You think that's easy?! Try it sometime. Your implication that this somehow makes them LESS talented and somehow not true musical works is offensive to all professional working musicians. For a guy who champions "the working man" you are letting those hard working singers and players down. Very sad.



Waffling.

Maybe so, maybe not, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. That YOU believe karaoke is a lesser form of recorded music and therefor doesnt deserve equal rights. A karaoke song by any manufacture (including SC) is a unique composition, no different from Elvis. The fact that in Karaoke the goal is to sound as much like the original as possible is irrelevant.

You don't even read Jim's posts do you Bazza? Besides the TM there are two copyrights at issue. One is owned by the publisher and the sound recording is owned by SC or Stingray. It is funny that SC only sues for TM infringement, it would seem they would also sue for the part of the product they hold the copyright as well? You keep using the example of Hound Dog not an original composition, if what Jim says is true it could be possible to have two copyrights on the same material. What is more likely to avoid confusion both copyrights are merged under one publisher. So it is possible at least in practice to have more than one copyright on a given original work end product.

This has been explained to you many times, which makes your first line a bit of "pot, meet kettle."

Nice how you avoided the points of my entire post above. More waffling and misdirection. Just don't answer the parts that you don't like. The parts where you trip on your own words. How deep are you going to dig this hole you have gotten yourself into?!

Don't you find it funny Jim's points about rights contradict everything you have been spouting on about? Mr. Harrington has proven you wrong and now you, by agreeing with him, have contradicted yourself yet again!!

Not "imitations". Not a lesser form of music based "a copy of the original underlying production". <-- YOUR WORDS

Equal rights. Just like Elvis.

You don't give a crap about "the working man". If you did, you wouldn't disrespect the hundreds of talented players and singers on those songs by dissing them as lesser "imitations".

Let the waffling continue.

Conversion is the key word. Something is being made from something else. I simply used the MP3+G example because that is the prevailing format and it was a good example of what MOST people are doing when ripping or copying.

But the grand point is that it is a recreation resulting in a new product.

_________________
-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Lone, if it wasn't for business, big or small, there wouldn't be any "working man". And for your info, every song Elvis did was an imitation ("Blue Suede Shoes" among others) or was on the backs of songwriters. Elvis never created a song in his life, not even one note, so I guess it makes him an imitator, not a creator.

I guess you didn't read that yes SC has a couple of ways to go TM or Copyright and they chose to go TM as the easier way, just like the US government used tax evasion rather than multiple murders, etc to get Capone and other Organized Crime figures.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

You want a yes or no answer Bazza, there can't be one. If anything is waffling or confusing it is the copyright laws that allow multiple copyrights on material that has been developed for use in karaoke. If they are not imitations then why can't they be made without the original compositions? When they make original tracks just for karaoke use then you can talk about 100% complete product not copied or redone from original compositions.

And the desperation comes pouring out.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I started typing the following -

"I think we can all agree that the way the laws stand now, they have not kept up with nor do they address the technological advances that have taken place over time."

Problem with that is that we can't all agree. So I will type this instead -

The way the current laws are written, they leave a lot of wiggle room for interpretation that only attorneys have the skills to properly twist to fit their position. Until the laws are updated to address the changes in technology, people will continue to exploit them to their advantage no matter what position they take.

Case in point is exactly what is being debated here -

The letter of the law (a literal interpretation) vs the spirit of the law (adhering to the intent).

If you don't like the heavy hand Sound Choice takes with attempting to protect their IP (spirit of the law), then opponents will attempt to use the letter of the law (which has not kept up with technology) to disrupt the conversation.

That is just one example. It is my feeling though that the laymen just doesn't have the proper skill set to interpret and manipulate the word and spirit in a court of law - which is where all of this truly matters because the court of public opinion is too tainted by personal beliefs.

_________________
-Chris

Then maybe you should leave it to the professionals, or at least those that understand what they are talking about. It is obvious you do not.



(Sigh) It is rather sad and pathetic what is happening here. YOU have a faith-like belief that a karaoke song is not a real musical work and equal to a non-karaoke song, such as Elvis songs. And you will dig yourself deeper and deeper into the hole rather than admit you have been proven dead wrong by the legal system you love to hate, even after contradicting yourself multiple times by agreeing with it!!!! You have even proved yourself wrong, with your own words. No small feat!