Which manufacturers have filed lawsuits?

[JR]

Hello!

I'm very new to the KJ scene. I've purchased a relatively large collection of legitimate CDGs, from a KJ that's giving it up (I got a stellar deal, too). I've combined that with my collection that I've been steadily gathering since 16 years old, and I've mustered nearly 3,000 tracks! I'd say nearly half of them are sound choice, but the rest are pretty evenly spread among 5 or 6 different manufacturers.

I do NOT want to lug these discs around (I've literally spent months format-shifting them, and I've grown up working with computers; the value of the familiarity, ease and convenience of them is inestimable for me).

I've read for HOURS the debates about laptops, etc., so no need to educate me on that. I've made the choice that I'd rather just ditch, and stop further purchasing of, the CDGs that are subject to these invasive audits and lawsuits, and keep my show high tech (again, no need to lecture me on how necessary a holy crusade this slew of litigation is, I've read every possible angle of that argument).

So far I've got Sound Choice as being the front runner, having filed suit against over 150 KJs/ establishments in Ohio, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, and Tennessee. I've heard that Chartbuster is gearing up for litigation as well (confirm/deny?); I've also heard mention Party Tyme (confirm/deny?).

Anyone out there knowledgeable in this area that can help me generate a list of companies that I'd personally want to stray from, given the decision I've made?

[wiseguy]

The more important question is "how many successful law suits have been filed against those who own the karaoke discs for every song on their hard drive while maintaining only a 1 to 1 copy?" I have not found a single case.

Every karaoke disc manufacturer is fighting piracy and I would imagine all of them will find it necessary to file law suits eventually if they stay in business long enough.

[JR]

For my intents and purposes, I don't care about if these suits are successful or not. The actual suit doesn't apply to me, as I'd be able to prove through an audit that I own my discs. However, I've decided not work with a media that is a red flag for getting audited. From what I can tell, it's just Sounds Choice, and Chartbuster.

[wiseguy]

It may be just Sound Choice and Chartbuster for now but it won't be long until Pop Hits Monthly and all the others follow suit. It's just the direction the industry is headed.

If you are going with the CD+G format (as if you have a choice) this is something you're going to be dealing with.

[DanG2006]

Right now it is just Sound Choice and they have switched to letters of intent before suing. If you are 1:1 I highly recommend contacting them and going through an audit. I know of two Karaoke companies who did and got letters to prove that they passed. End of suit. No money expended.

[Bigdog]

It doesn't matter which company you pick.

Nobody has ever paid for the legal right to put any CD+G or any other format on a hard drive. Owning any CD+G discs never gave you the right to do a hard drive format shift. Some companies have agreed with a 1-1 copy of a CD+G to another CD but not from CD to hard drive.

So in my opinion every KJ using CD+G music tranfered from a disc to a hard drive is doing so illegally.

Does that answer the question well enough?

It's the same with the public performance rights which none of us have.

No matter what any of us do we will always be illegal in some form or another. Sound Choice audit or not. Doesn't matter.

If you truly want to be safe from any legal actions don't ever play any karaoke music outside you house for profit. Especially from a hard drive.

I'm not kidding and this isn't a joke.

[wiseguy]

It doesn't matter which company you pick.

Nobody has ever paid for the legal right to put any CD+G or any other format on a hard drive. Owning any CD+G discs never gave you the right to do a hard drive format shift. Some companies have agreed with a 1-1 copy of a CD+G to another CD but not from CD to hard drive.

So in my opinion every KJ using CD+G music tranfered from a disc to a hard drive is doing so illegally.

Does that answer the question well enough?

It's the same with the public performance rights which none of us have.

No matter what any of us do we will always be illegal in some form or another. Sound Choice audit or not. Doesn't matter.

If you truly want to be safe from any legal actions don't ever play any karaoke music outside you house for profit. Especially from a hard drive.

I'm not kidding and this isn't a joke.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

There does not have to be a law that says it is legal to format shift music. It is legal until there is a law that says it isn't. I know of no such law. If you do then please enlighten us to where we might see evidence of this law. Just saying it doesn't make it real.

As for public performance rights, from what you're saying, every DJ and KJ from the beginning of time has been performing illegally. Yet none have ever gotten into trouble for these illegal public performances. Or could it be that those ASCAP, BMI, and other fees that the venues have to pay gives you the legal right for the public performance? Again, if you can point us to some legal document that says differently please do so.

[DanG2006]

Sounds like chicken little got to you. The sky is not falling. People who have a 1:1 ratio have nothing to fear from "big bad" Sound Choice. In fact I know two people who have gone through the audit and come out on the other end without spending a cent to Sound Choice. They are only interested in collecting money from those that haven't bought their product the legal way.

[Bigdog]

I remember it being an issue several years ago. It's part of the copyright law, somewhere. The disc manufacturers only paid for the rights to use the songs in a CD+G format. PERIOD....It never mentioned a 1 to 1 option....Tranferring the music to a different format (any other format) requires paying for that right as if you never bought the CD+G rights. Making a CD+G disc would be 1 to 1. Coping that same song to a hard drive makes it 2 to 1. Sounds simple enough for me to understand.

So how many disc companies do you think bought the rights to put songs on a CD+G (sold to you) plus a hard drive transfer? Paying twice for one song. I pick none of them did. Did you pay twice for the discs???

Transferring your songs to anything but another disc (1 to 1) therefore is illegal. Does everyone agree you can make a 1 to 1 copy to another disc? Where and who gave you the legal right to put the song on a hard drive????

I'm waiting.....


Most companies would argue that a 1 to 1 (disc to disc) copy is illegal. So you think they would say OK to the hard drive format shift too???

I'm still waiting....

Buy transferring your music to a hard drive (which you never bought the rights to do) the publishers/song writer/song owners got screwed out of royalty money. Tell me different....


I'll be waiting...

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.... This discussion was covered with links on another karaoke site several years ago. Dan you should remember it.


How much is Sound Choice charging for songs they find without the disc as proof?

[wiseguy]

I remember it being an issue several years ago. It's part of the copyright law, somewhere. The disc manufacturers only paid for the rights to use the songs in a CD+G format. PERIOD....It never mentioned a 1 to 1 option....Tranferring the music to a different format (any other format) requires paying for that right as if you never bought the CD+G rights. Making a CD+G disc would be 1 to 1. Coping that same song to a hard drive makes it 2 to 1. Sounds simple enough for me to understand.
So how many disc companies do you think bought the rights to put songs on a CD+G (sold to you) plus a hard drive transfer? Paying twice for one song. I pick none of them did. Did you pay twice for the discs???

Transferring your songs to anything but another disc (1 to 1) therefore is illegal. Does everyone agree you can make a 1 to 1 copy to another disc? Where and who gave you the legal right to put the song on a hard drive????

The only discussion I remember on this subject was when Sound Choice said that they did not have the right to allow format shifting of their discs song tracks. Of course when that didn't work, and they couldn't survive without allowing the format shifting, this little problem magically ceased to exist.

Just because a disc manufacturer says it doesn't make it true. You are spouting out these "facts" as if they are law. Show me the law

I'm waiting...

Most companies would argue that a 1 to 1 (disc to disc) copy is illegal. So you think they would say OK to the hard drive format shift too???

Of course a company who's own interest would be served by this law would argue that this is fact. But that doesn't make it true. Show me the law

I'm still waiting...

Buy transferring your music to a hard drive (which you never bought the rights to do) the publishers/song writer/song owners got screwed out of royalty money. Tell me different....

If you make only a 1 to 1 copy playing that copy is no different than playing the original when it comes to intellectual copyright. It's the performance of a song that is covered by ASCAP and BMI licensing regardless of the media it was played from.

You've been told different...

Ignorance of the law is no excuse....

Ignorance is spouting out laws when you can provide no evidence that they even exist.

[mnementh]

If you make only a 1 to 1 copy playing that copy is no different than playing the original when it comes to intellectual copyright. It's the performance of a song that is covered by ASCAP and BMI licensing regardless of the media it was played from.

This, in FACT, absolutely correct.

There is no Law anywhere on the planet that I have heard off that prevents the OWNER of a purchased CD, music or whatever, copyrighted or not, making a backup copy of that CD.

At least be logical about it Bigdog. If you buy a CD, surely you have the right to use that disc in perpetuity and not have to keep buying it?

What happens, if through no fault of your own, the disc becomes unusable does that mean you have to buy another copy?

Over here, we have a simple response to that and that is "BOLLOX"!

I make a backup but only use the backup and store the original.

As far as I'm concerned, Sound Choice and any of the others can take a hike and take me to Court if they want.

Over here, they WILL lose!

Sandy.

[Bigdog]

I have many Sound Choice discs that are ruined because the foil is oxidizing and has ended up making holes in the foil. These discs are now useless.

I will continue to copy every disc I buy to my hard drive for this very reason.


The only discussion I remember on this subject was when Sound Choice said that they did not have the right to allow format shifting of their discs song tracks.

That is because no disc company paid extra money to the publishers to have that right. They bought the rights to do a disc copy of the publishers music, not a format shift copy to a hard drive. If you remember it ...it must be so. Sound Choice wouldn't lie just to scare people. They meant it because they know the copyright law. And they know they didn't pay for the format shift copy.

Now if you think about it logically...why would any disc company pay double so YOU could be able to do a format shift? Which has me thinking that Sound Choice Must have paid double to do the GEM series.... Allowing for the legal format shift now.

And that said..if you have Sound Choice music on your hard drive now...you should be legal providing you have the disc. The format shift has now been paid for.

[JR]

Where and who gave you the legal right to put the song on a hard drive????

Man, I'd hate to go through life with that kind of perspective. I'd be scared to take a shower unless I knew some law existed allowing me to do it.

No disrespect intended, Bigdog, but your first post was full of unsubstantiated supposition. Wiseguy said "show me the law." You ignored that, and responded with more supposition.

Anyway, I know this isn't a debate forum, so I'll stop there.

Thanks for the info fellas.

[Bigdog]

In 30 seconds I found this info...Sceptics..

Pick a country too....

http://www.smartcopying.edu.au/scw/go/pid/529

http://jonathan.rawle.org/2008/01/08/th ... -shifting/

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/crp-prda.n ... 01158.html

Now it looks like since I and others had this argument several years ago...things may have changed around 2008. It was illegal up until they made these changes. I personally haven't been keeping up with the changes in the law. But all of this stuff leads to interesting reading.

http://www.mtu.com/support/copyright-notes.htm Look at the Sound Choice stance on it.


Now when you are all done reading this info...tell me what is legal and not.


Wait there is more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format-shifting


There still could be a hang up on the Commercial Use deal...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/ca ... d_1072.htm

[wiseguy]

Everyone has their own opinion on how the law reads on these subjects. Interpretation is as varied as individual agendas.

I personally tend to lean toward the opinions of the software companies like MTU and Tricerasoft as they are U.S. based companies who have been in the business of dealing with these legalities for many years. And also because they just make common sense.

There may be some outdated laws on the books somewhere that would seem to make format shifting of recorded music illegal. This really means nothing.

Have you ever been to one of those sites that list ridiculous laws that are still in on the books? In my state there is a law that says I may beat my wife as long as the stick I use is no bigger around than my thumb Can you imagine what would happen if I tried to take advantage of that law?

The bottom line is to use common sense, follow your conscious, and waste no time worrying about things that are just ridiculous.