So you are just taking someone's word on it. Do you think they would tell you about the KJs who told them where to shove their law suit?DanG2006 wrote:None that I know of because the ones that were 1:1 did an audit before it got that far. All got permission to continue using their computers via a letter stating so.
Finding Duplicate Files
I can't see anyone who goes to court winning even though they are 1:1 compliant because all the Manu's have to say is that they never gave permission for the shift and then it is put upon the defendant to prove otherwise and they can't without going through the Manu's audit. If they go through the audit and pass, and I know of two who have because I have the word of both of them plus Sound Choice that they did, then the suit gets dropped and permission is given to continue using the computer or computers.
You can follow the trails of those stupid enough to tell SC to shove it on www.Justia.com for free.
You can follow the trails of those stupid enough to tell SC to shove it on www.Justia.com for free.
First it would have to be decided that the format shifting without permission is indeed illegal. Until that is decisively settled it doesn't matter if you were given permission to do so.DanG2006 wrote:I can't see anyone who goes to court winning even though they are 1:1 compliant because all the Manu's have to say is that they never gave permission for the shift and then it is put upon the defendant to prove otherwise and they can't without going through the Manu's audit. If they go through the audit and pass, and I know of two who have because I have the word of both of them plus Sound Choice that they did, then the suit gets dropped and permission is given to continue using the computer or computers.
You can follow the trails of those stupid enough to tell SC to shove it on www.Justia.com for free.
Have you read the positions taken by major companies like MTU and Tricerasoft? These companies have been producing software specifically designed for the format shifting of karaoke CDG discs and they have been doing this for many years. There is a reason why they have not been stopped.
The only SC cases I can find on justia.com are those against SC.
Funny I was able to find at least three cases where Sound Choice or Sleptone-Entertainment was the plaintiff. Chartbuster is now onboard the 1:1 format shift policy and I can't see Stellar (Pop Hits Monthly) not soon following suit. According to Kurt Slep from Sound Choice, all three share the same philosophies concerning 1:1. Chartbuster seems to have a different take on downloads as they offer them where both Sound Choice and Pop hits have gone the MP3+G disc route with only Sound Choice providing a license for their product.
To those reading this thread:
Please keep in mind that Sound Choice is NOT suing for "format shifting." They are suing for "Trademark Infringement" claiming that KJ's do NOT have permission "to transfer the Sound Choice LOGO" from the original disc to a hard drive.
The problem with this of course is that what they are doing is known as "Trademark Extortion" (google it). They want to force KJ's to submit to their "audit" as a fishing expedition to gather evidence against the kj. American courts do not tolerate these types of actions very well. Sound Choice does NOT want one of these cases to actually be decided in a courtroom because if it was decided against them, there would be a precedent for format-shifting. Currently, there is no precedent when it comes to format-shifting a karaoke disc.
Chartbuster has not sued anyone, nor has Stellar Records (Pop Hits Monthly). The difference of course is that these two companys still sell karaoke cd's. Sound Choice has admitted that their "business model" is now not producing karaoke cd's - it is simply suing ANY KJ that uses a computer that displays their logo to make money- whether or NOT they actually own the disc. They are ALSO SUING NIGHTCLUBS AS WELL.
We have dropped using the brand entirely in order to protect ourselves and our clubs from this type of offensive legal action. Surprisingly, it is has not made any difference to our patrons who are more interested in having a good time rather than "performing for the crowd."
Please keep in mind that Sound Choice is NOT suing for "format shifting." They are suing for "Trademark Infringement" claiming that KJ's do NOT have permission "to transfer the Sound Choice LOGO" from the original disc to a hard drive.
The problem with this of course is that what they are doing is known as "Trademark Extortion" (google it). They want to force KJ's to submit to their "audit" as a fishing expedition to gather evidence against the kj. American courts do not tolerate these types of actions very well. Sound Choice does NOT want one of these cases to actually be decided in a courtroom because if it was decided against them, there would be a precedent for format-shifting. Currently, there is no precedent when it comes to format-shifting a karaoke disc.
Chartbuster has not sued anyone, nor has Stellar Records (Pop Hits Monthly). The difference of course is that these two companys still sell karaoke cd's. Sound Choice has admitted that their "business model" is now not producing karaoke cd's - it is simply suing ANY KJ that uses a computer that displays their logo to make money- whether or NOT they actually own the disc. They are ALSO SUING NIGHTCLUBS AS WELL.
We have dropped using the brand entirely in order to protect ourselves and our clubs from this type of offensive legal action. Surprisingly, it is has not made any difference to our patrons who are more interested in having a good time rather than "performing for the crowd."
I can't see anyone who is 1:1 compliant LOSING a case. One of the key provisions in any trademark or copyright case is that the plaintiff has to prove they were willfully damaged by the defendant. A host who adheres to 1:1 for their hard disk library and uses the disks as a backup, not only doesn't harm the plaintiff, but demonstrates by their actions they have no intention of harming the plaintiff.DanG2006 wrote:I can't see anyone who goes to court winning even though they are 1:1 compliant
It's not the manufacturers being good guys that makes them so quick to back off when a host can prove 1:1, it's that if they take a 1:1 host to court, a judge is quite likely to hand the plaintiff their own butt on a platter, and award damages to the defendant.
Last week, I went to Philadelphia, but it was closed.
Because they are a "vendor" not a government agency... Might as well submit to a "simple body-cavity search" while you're at it...DanG2006 wrote:But if you are 1:1, why bother going to court and paying those costs when a simple free audit will end the process.
They are demanding an "audit" without any proof whatsoever and simply want the KJ to provide the proof they are looking for.
Besides, Kurt Slep (owner of Sound Choice) has ALREADY granted permission to shift your tracks and he did that 12 YEARS ago. Here is a snapshot from the old Jolt forum:
http://dkusa.com/images/kslep.jpg
Because we are not all ass kissers. Because this is a country where you shouldn't have to prove you are innocent to not be guilty.DanG2006 wrote:But if you are 1:1, why bother going to court and paying those costs when a simple free audit will end the process.
First thing in the morning why don't you take a urine sample to your employer to prove that you don't take drugs? Then drop by your local police station and offer a DNA sample to prove that you are not a rapist. And while you're at it you might as well drop by the IRS with all your financial statements to prove that you have paid all your taxes. These things are no different than agreeing to the SC audit.
Dan, you have made it very clear as to where your lips are firmly planted. I for one will not be following your example. It's great to want to help fight the war on piracy but not at the expense of giving up fundamental rights.
I long ago replaced all my SC song tracks with those of other brands. Not because of fear of a law suit but because of the bullying tactics SC has resorted to. I simply choose to no longer support them in any fashion. So they can have their way as their logo will never again be displayed by me.C. Staley wrote:We have dropped using the brand entirely in order to protect ourselves and our clubs from this type of offensive legal action. Surprisingly, it is has not made any difference to our patrons who are more interested in having a good time rather than "performing for the crowd."
And by the way, nobody has even noticed that they are gone.
Actually, all I can gather from that image is the permission to make a backup copy of discs. Not exactly the same as format shifting.C. Staley wrote:Because they are a "vendor" not a government agency... Might as well submit to a "simple body-cavity search" while you're at it...DanG2006 wrote:But if you are 1:1, why bother going to court and paying those costs when a simple free audit will end the process.
They are demanding an "audit" without any proof whatsoever and simply want the KJ to provide the proof they are looking for.
Besides, Kurt Slep (owner of Sound Choice) has ALREADY granted permission to shift your tracks and he did that 12 YEARS ago. Here is a snapshot from the old Jolt forum:
http://dkusa.com/images/kslep.jpg
wiseguy wrote:Actually, all I can gather from that image is the permission to make a backup copy of discs. Not exactly the same as format shifting.C. Staley wrote:Because they are a "vendor" not a government agency... Might as well submit to a "simple body-cavity search" while you're at it...DanG2006 wrote:But if you are 1:1, why bother going to court and paying those costs when a simple free audit will end the process.
They are demanding an "audit" without any proof whatsoever and simply want the KJ to provide the proof they are looking for.
Besides, Kurt Slep (owner of Sound Choice) has ALREADY granted permission to shift your tracks and he did that 12 YEARS ago. Here is a snapshot from the old Jolt forum:
http://dkusa.com/images/kslep.jpg
Dan have they shown you a written copy of their permission to give any of us permission to do a format shift?
Without a written copy of this permission...your audit is bogus. This permission must come from the original music owners/publisher/writer.
And do you have it in your possession? As your written proof for the Copyright Agency.
I'm not talking about the 1-1 permission to another disc. I'm talking about a format shift to a hard drive. They are different.
I'm comfortable with the pieces of papers that I have received telling me that as long as I keep a 1:1 ratio, they won't sue me. That does not mean they can't investigate me to make sure I am keeping up with the 1:1 ratio. As long as I keep up with that I am not worried. If they still sue I will whip out my covenant not to sue before the judge. I have no doubt that the judge will throw out the suit after discovery proves I haven't breached the agreement.
As to downloads, I am done with that. Disc purchases only for me.
There is a price for those permissions, a look at your library to make sure you are 1:1. Otherwise you won't get the papers authorizing the format shift and in court that is all they need to win a suit that gos to court.
The old ALL RIGHTS RESERVED that you see printed on the disc includes the right to either give permission or not for the shift. The permission that Chip alludes to only has to do with Disc to disc.
As to downloads, I am done with that. Disc purchases only for me.
There is a price for those permissions, a look at your library to make sure you are 1:1. Otherwise you won't get the papers authorizing the format shift and in court that is all they need to win a suit that gos to court.
The old ALL RIGHTS RESERVED that you see printed on the disc includes the right to either give permission or not for the shift. The permission that Chip alludes to only has to do with Disc to disc.
Actually not true!DanG2006 wrote:The permission that Chip alludes to only has to do with Disc to disc.
The permission allows you to make a backup.
It does not say in any way shape or form what method of backup is implied.
As far as I can see, you can make your backup in any manner you choose.
YOU might choose to believe the backup is in the form of a CD+G disc or I might choose it to be in the form of an MP3+G.
The issue then becomes whether you use your backup and keep your originals safe, or not.
From my point of view, there is neither an implied permisiion to format shift or not, since the MP3+G option wasn't readily available when the permission was given.
Sandy
