Karaoke Forums

I'm happy both of you like each other sooooo! much. The only ax I have to grind is the question why does SC feel compelled to follow this legal process farce? None of the other viable and non viable manus seem to need the courtroom drama. The reason being they are not sitting on a mountain of unsold inventory like SC is. What is getting pretty thin is this SC, is the only manu trying to stand up for their label baloney. They got caught in a karaoke game of chairs left standing and are trying to get all players to make good their loses. To pretend anything else is an insult to the intelligence of all hosts.

How would that be piracy? Let's say I own a SC disc that is no longer available, meaning I can't buy it again if it breaks, and I put it on my computer. How is that breaking your rules?? I am not depriving you of a sale because I could re-buy that disc if I wanted to. According to your rules, if I lose that disc, or it breaks, screw it, I am out that music. If I could shift unavailable music I wouldn't have that problem, and you STILL wouldn't lose a sale. And, at that point, if a guy were to shift that same disc 10 times, it would NOT hurt SC, because if the disc is unavailable, there is still no disc to buy 10 copies of.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

This only means that Dan lost the option to use SC in a civil suit. It did not set a legal precedent in regard to non-duplicated use of disc tracks.

Please keep in mind that I Am OMD based. The legality of disc splitting has no effect on me. I have no "side", and don't consider it an SC specific issue, even though SC is the only company to bring it up.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Jim, I have no arguement with the above, but it was also a completely different kettle of fish. He was streaming from a single server to multiple locations, and could very well have been duplicating usage no matter what he said.

However, we were discussing different tracks from the same disc - without duplicating - on two separate PCs, each to be used at a separate single site. No way to use the same tracks at the different locations.

Each PC having tracks for which the KJ has the disc. No duplication means each PC is up to "1:1" standard.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Good to see that my question wasn't so poorly worded that it couldn't be understood by SOMEONE! (well, at least the bulk of it) The main point, based on the topic of discussion, was that if the law, or, at the very least, some rule, about putting tracks from one disc onto two computers (i.e. 1-5 on Computer A and 6-10 on Computer B) is a situation where a company cannot lose sales (i.e. A disc is no longer produced or sold by a manufacturer), why wouldn't it then be allowed?

Whether SC is being deprived of a sale or not is not the only question.

What you are describing is saying "I can't buy it anywhere, so I'll just steal it."

However, let's just follow what you propose to its conclusion. Suppose SC discontinues a product because it doesn't sell well. Does that mean it ought to be open season for those who do want to buy it. By stealing it after it's been discontinued, you're making it more difficult to justify bringing that product back, even though there is demand for it. That *does* deprive SC of sales.

It's not completely different. Whether he was duplicating usage or not, the point (which the judge made) was that he was getting more use out of the discs than he would be able to get without media-shifting. Here's why it matters:



Let's say a KJ is a neo-Luddite in New Jersey who plays exclusively from discs. He books gigs at two different places for tomorrow night and hires an assistant to run one of the shows. He has one copy of SC8125. It just so happens that tomorrow is Don Henley's 67th birthday (it really is; look it up), so there is an influx of folks--at both places--who want to sing Eagles tunes, which can be hard to find. Can he cut his SC8125 in half--the physical disc--so he can use half the songs in one place, and half in another?

Of course not. If he wants to have songs from the same disc in both places, he has to have two discs.



Yes, it's 1:1, but it violates the rule about not giving the KJ more use of the music than he would be able to obtain without media-shifting. (Or, stated another way, the rule prevents the media-shifting KJ from being able to buy less music than he would have to buy if he were using original discs.)

Bring what product back? SC has not made any new product in over 5 years. All they did was recycle old material which they licensed in England to avoid the copyright laws of the U.S. Where is the demand? All the old product has been distributed and everyone that wants the product has it. The only reason the legal process continues Jim is to leverage hosts into licensing the unsold GEM series product, which you have already admitted SC has a several year stockpile of. "Suits drives sales".

Again....It is not the ONLY reason.

_________________
-Chris

I have to admit that my breath really is taken away by the people who don't seem to understand what "suits drive sales" means.

Suppose you were a KJ who operates from a pirated hard drive you purchased, entirely ignorant of the fact of piracy and the rules that govern the use of that material. You find out that others have been sued for using pirated hard drives. You want to do things legally, and you haven't been caught operating illegally--yet. Wouldn't your inclination be to buy discs to try to get legal?

Or if it wouldn't be *your* inclination, can you at least conceive that it would be *some* people's inclination?

That is all that is meant by "suits drive sales." It's a simple concept, and there's nothing illegitimate about it. Yet some people, who seem to have an axe to grind with SC, try to make it into something sinister.

LMFAOAPMP!!!

You obviously don't know how to read. I said "Let's say I own a SC disc that is no longer available, meaning I can't buy it again if it breaks". I didn't say, let's say I wanted to download a disc that was no longer available. You are a bit TOO rigid with your rules. That is why, somewhere down the line SC will fail. It is obvious, at this point, that most of the other working companies are not going after KJs, nor do they plan to. THAT will ALSO screw up your sales. People don't want to buy from a company that hunts down their own customers, hoping to catch them in the act of media shifting.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

We aren't hunting customers. We're hunting non-customers that are stealing the product.

You're hunting everyone.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

1-4) Yes, media shifting allowed the tracks on a single disc (the completely unlicensed SC8125- why would you want to bring THAT up again, since SC would have nothing to say about it...), but media shifting wasn't the issue. The issue was whether the PC host was "1:1". This is separate from media shifting. "1:1" is a matter of whether one stole music ( nothing to do with SC suits) , while media shifting is something still not set in stone by our legal system.

The one server streamer could well have gotten double or triple usage from a specific track. The PC host gets single usage at each specific site. Until a court rules that PC backups are or are not legal, the media shifting is of no consequence in regard to usage.

A Neo - Luddite in northern NJ? Why, the premise is ridiculous....

Actually, just because said Neo- Luddite does not have the ability to split a disc and use it doesn't mean the techno - kj is not allowed to do so. At least not until the whole media shifting issue has been set in legal stone. Since SC seems to be the only entity worried about it, I foresee a wee bit of a wait on that.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I would think a luddite would be on the side of SC in this situation. Why should a computer use have ANY advantage over music from discs. Doing two shows - they should have 2 discs for each show regardless of whether it's already duplicated on a set they may have. You as a disc user cannot run two show splitting a disc 1-7 tracks in one show & 8-15 in another - you would need 2 of that same disc in order to get that advantage. A computer user shouldn't have that advantage simply because they can. I wouldn't try to take advantage in that manner if I were running multiple systems.

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

it kinda depends on perspective Lon....
in order to use a disc on three rigs you need to pay for those songs three times....
if you buy three discs that all have a comon song (say Margaritaville) you paid for three copies of Margaritaville...
but you can not use two of those copies.
if you paid for three copies of a song, shouldn't you be able to put them on three rigs?
you are stealing nothing from anybody you paid for those three copies of Margaritaville on original SC discs
SC got paid
Jimmy Buffett Got Paid
Coral Reefer Music Got Paid
You only get one copy you can use, the other two you gave them money out of the goodness of your heart.

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

Come on Jim if it is just a matter of education, to make some hosts want to be legal? Currently you have a less than 2% solution to the piracy problem after what 5 years of this legal dance of yours. If your mission is education it hasn't been very successful. The only hosts that seem to be concerned at all with the legality of all of this, are the one's that frequent these forums. The vast majority of hosts could care less.

You are right it is a simple concept, the legitimacy of which is in the eye of the beholder. SC has years of unsold inventory that has already been paid for. Unless that inventory can be sold, it will remain a net loss on the SC account books. The market has dried up except for a few hosts that might be expanding their current operations, and don't want to run afoul of SC. No ax Jim just a question that doesn't seem to have an answer. Why does SC of all the manus use this legal process vehicle? The only answer I get is SC has all of this unsold material they are trying to unload. The other defunct manus have dumped their excess material on the market a long time ago, even CB, though they said they destroyed large amounts of unsold inventory. That was a lie since later it was found out it was sold to Ace Karaoke who sold the surplus inventory. I guess the end will come when SC follows suit and dumps it's unsold GEM series on the market.

In the meantime hosts can steer clear of your legal process by simply boycotting your product. There is plenty of product out here where the manus both alive and dead don't sue hosts, so why even bother with your product? Which is by the way becoming more dated everyday you are no longer in production. I know we are going to resume production in the near future. I won't hold my breath.

It is the ONLY reason that matters Chris. Like it has been stated many times by tim and other hosts SC is a company, like any company it has to make money in order to stay in business. They are not on some grand crusade to defend legal hosts from illegal operators. They have admitted that much. That is why when they haul in the guilty they also catch the dolphins in their dragnet. You yourself Chris has asked the question why haven't other manus joined in the legal process methods? The answer is that other defunct manus dumped their product on the market along time ago, and are not sitting on a several year unsold inventory stockpile.

Isn't this what Digitrax does?

Streams a single library to multiple locations at one time right?

And why doesn't this deprive SC of competitive sales?

_________________
Birdofsong