Karaoke Forums

Once the SC product is copied it is no longer the product of SC it is a copy of it and is a deception just as making a copy of the chiquita banana and sticker and passing them off as chiquita bananas.

Sooo....if you take a Chiquita banana, peel it, cut it into slices - hence changing the original format you purchased it in - and put it into a fruit salad....that is....non compliant? Has Chiquita never authorized the use of their bananas in fruit salad? I think you might have just opened up another conspiracy theory on Elvis' death. It was Chiquita for using an unauthorized format of their product in a meal he advertised as his favorite.

Once it is chopped into a fruit salad it certainly is no longer a chiquita banana it is now fruit salad and yes packaging it and severing it to the consumer as a chiquita banana salad would be a deception because the salad is no longer just a chiquita banana, putting a chiquita sticker on it isn't going to make it one either.

Just as copying a Sound Choice track and having a copy of the Sound Choice logo on it doesn't make it a Sound Choice track unless they have approved it.

I think my point was missed. I wasn't talking about manus stealing and masking and I'm not going to argue you on the finer points of marketing or selling fruit salad or the Chiquita corporation. However, I did see that episode of Undercover Boss which featured it, so I must be an expert in the field of Chiquita banana-ology.

No I didn't miss your point..... you think that by making a copy of the origional is the same thing as the origional, my contention is that it is now a new product that is still using the logo of the origional and as such is a violation of the trademark.

1. ORIGINAL. Say it with me. Original. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =origional

2. You completely turned my argument into something I think we can all agree upon. The Chiquita banana reference was supposed to be about the idiocy of media shifting. Somehow this got turned into making illegal copies of "origionals."

3. Again, you missed my point.

You are correct I must have missed your point, still am, did you have a point?

I love it when we agree on something- it scares the hell out of everybody..

When a company makes a disc, they are responsible for the control of quality and content of that product. When someone rips a disc to a PC under their own auspices ( and usually using consumer equipment instead of the professional equipment found in the manufacturers' facilities) the original mfr. loses all control of the quality and content of the transferred product.

They are no longer responsible for that product, OR it's licensing. The creator of the new product is. This is why mfrs. love it when you rip, though they won't admit it because they can't grant the legal right to transfer.

If a publisher/music OWNER decides to jump into this mess, the PC based host will be the one held SOLELY responsible. A user of Mfr.'s discs gets to pass most of that responsibility back to the mfr.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

If a publisher/music owner decides to jump into this mess, what makes you think that it won't be on the side against piracy?

Why do you insist the legitimate KJ's will be targeted?

Disc based & operating or Disc based & PC operating aren't the bad guys.

NO DISCS & OPERATING are.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

i cant find the law that says transfers to pc are no longer manu responsibility. where the hell did you find it? i have been hunting and getting nowhere. that one point could stop a lot of the bickering to have the proof that it is now our responsibility. can you post the link for it?

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

You misunderstood me. I'm SURE the publishers/owners will be on the side against piracy. The thing is, since most US karaoke producers had/have little or no licensing, their tracks would be considered pirate as well. ( SC has no US licensing, CB has at least 180+ songs out though under permanent injunction, there are outstanding suits against all of the "big three", plus mfrs. yet to be mentioned- though I see no suits against Pocket Songs or Sybersound, so they may be licensed.).

In other words EVERY host ( including manufacturers' original disc based) can run into trouble from publidher/owners. The difference is that a PC host will be held fully responsible, because their transferred tracks are considered thier own creation, while disc based hosts ( using the manufacturers' product) can pass responsibility back to the mfr.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe, I agree with you sometimes. I disagree with you other times. This occasion would fall under the latter.

Please point me to the legal authority behind your argument. Otherwise someone may think the above statement is more than what I believe it to be... just your opinion.

How about we do better? I say to you what I say to all "prove its"- do your own research and then you will KNOW- and there won't be any debate. You feel that I'm wrong. Do the research for yourself and prove to yourself that I'm wrong. Once you do that, post it here, and I will offer you a public apology. You win two ways- you have uncontested knowledge, and me groveling for forgiveness. Worth your while?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Good grief. Seriously? THERE SIMPLY IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! Merely your opinion.

oooorrrr.....just post the link to the law that you know that no one else knows. prove it Joe. putting these on my computer makes them my problem and not the manus.....stand behind what you say and prove it. opinion is fine but do not post it as fact or law when nothing is shown to back up that opinion. you say i am responsible for the content on my computer and not the manus because of the transfer....there is no law anywhere that says so, if there is, prove it. have asked nicely for facts to expand my knowledge when i could not find them and you say go find them? show me what you have that the rest of us are not smart enough to find. if you do not have the laws to back up your statements then just say so and everybody can move on. if you can not prove what you say, let it go.

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

This is a great discussion.
However SC doesn't own the copyrights to the songs they sell.
They only have reproduction rights from the label companies.
The only thing they can go after is the right for you to show on an overhead monitor their logo. All you have to do is only show their songs on the monitor the folks sing from.

The cases they are comming with are without merrit and do not address the true issue of piracy. They still can't stop companies from reproducing their songs and selling them, very cheep, on the open market nore can they realy stop folks, trying to just make a living, from copying to another harddrive for more work. BTW Transfer of these songs for backup according to congress is legal it is called "space-shift".

This whole afire is unfortumate for SC has realy destroyed the market for themselves with the tactics they have and are presently using.
Not only are folks going to boucot their products, presently in the works, they are also assembling a class action suit against SC and all the folks that are whistle blowers will mentioned in this suit. I heard its around $4B.

I hope Sleb has a new business in mind because this one is about to have its doors closed permanently.

Really 2gemman?

Your first post. You should have spent more time reading. You've just shoved your foot in your mouth up to the shin.

There are a lot of anti-SC blow-hards around here and frankly, your feeble indignation wouldn't amount to a zit on their rear-ends.

SC doesn't own the copyrights -DUH-, they license the rights to reproduce the owners' IP and then they own the rights to the product that they have manufactured.

Your overhead monitor BS doesn't fly. This isn't a game of hide and seek. Maybe you aren't aware of how juvenile your suggestion sounds. I could see you realizing that the singer might be a P.I. and then rushing over to put your hand over the SC logo on the singer's monitor. What a joke. (really, I am laughing about it).

You have implicated yourself with your statements about reproducing their songs and selling them very cheap as well as your statement about copying to another hard drive for more work. The legality that you don't seem to understand is what you are referring to as "space-shift" is the granted, fair-use, archival copy of music media. This can presumably be related to karaoke media as well, but there is a difference because the karaoke product is NOT the original material. It is a wholly separate item. You can archive your karaoke from original mfr's discs. The issue of trademark infringement only comes into play if you USE those archival files to run a show in a public venue. Your archival copy is not at issue, your use of that copy without permission from that trademark rights holder is. You are being told that if you use that copy, you must have purchased the original media (cd+g or mp3+g) from a legal source. Additionally, the original must remain un-used and in your possession. That isn't so hard to understand, is it?

No market has been destroyed by SC. In fact, as things progress, we are seeing testimonial from people who've witnessed positive change in their respective markets as KJ's are being called out to put up or shut up.

Has your $4B lawsuit been filed? Please refer a link.

And use a spell checker: "comming" "merrit" "unfortumate" "boucot" and "cheep" & "afire" which aren't mis-spelled but mis-used.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

Where are you located?

Also you may want to read this to help in your education: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=20963&start=58

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

The instrumental version of a karaoke song is what's called a "cover" of a song. Recorded covers are regarded as unique works in their own right, and the creator of a recorded cover version does have copyrights to that cover version as long as the proper licensing is acquired. Trying to circumvent those copyrights by obfuscating the origin of the track is an illegal act, just as making unauthorized copies in the first place is an illegal act.



Making counterfeit copies of anything and selling them is illegal. Backups are indeed legal, but a backup, by it's nature is designed to be stored in a safe place and protected from loss - NOT USED. A cloned drive for the purpose of acquiring two shows worth of music for the price of one isn't a backup, it's theft.



Sounds like you've been busted, dude. My advice is to settle, or go overseas. From the informational errors of your post, the fact that you seem to feel that outright theft of intellectual property is acceptable, and the fact you don't even know the name of the person who is CEO of Sound Choice, it's unlikely you'd mount a successful defense.

_________________
Dave's not here.

Moonrider,

I believe he has already settled hence the name "2 GEM man" he is just angry about getting caught and having to pay up. This of course is just supposition on my part!