Invited in to help fight piracy!

Hey Steve,

Ever heard of the flying cockroach?

They were moving into Florida years ago from Cuba (?)

The are attracted to light. Nasty buggers will fly around yer head while you are sitting at your kitchen table!

 

Jennifer at least if they fly at you you can smoosh them flat:laughpill:

 

Yup, quoted myself for the bump. I have asked this question in the past, and have yet to get a reply. Skipping it indicates to me that no one has an opposing opinion.

Do both sides actually agree on something????

 

I don't disagree on the fact that it would be NICE to get paid for it, but at the same time........I don't really see this as ever being a reality

 

respectfuly Joe no-one has answered this again because it has been gone over a number of times and we are trying to prevent arguments. SC is using the methods they are using because the "kinder gentler" methods did not work. They do investigate...in our area they hired a private investigation firm that found the high number of pirates I posted about....No-one is legal that transfers files according to the law as it stands now... unless they have written permission from SC

 

And the only way that SC is going to give that permission is if they know for a fact that you are 1:1. And the only way they are going to know that is through an audit.

 

Actally Athena, the part about compensation and it's link to both a better investigation and good will of SC's customer base has not been gone over at all:


1) If SC actually investigates, they will get their money back from the guilty, and this will cost them nothing in the long run

2) Legit KJs would be compensated for their time and trouble

3) The harrassment and inconvenience for the legit KJs would end, again, because SC would actually investigate PRIOR to sending letters.

4) Whether right or wrong, many KJs would cut back on the the bad word of mouth because of the compensation, and SC might yet save what's left of a customer base if they ever get back into the karaoke music production business.



All I ask is someone to show a downside here. So far no one ever has.

Does this mean that ALL agree that the KJs should be compensated for the audit and it's prep time?

If yes, fine.

If no, please explain. That's all I ask.

 

Joe your point is understood...it would be nice to be paid for the time involved however just by converting to digital is violation of the law....SC is willing to give written permission to anyone that proves they are not stealing music so the compensation for the time involved in the audit is written permission...In my eyes that is better than cash.

 

This is just DEAD WRONG. It is not a violation of Law to rip the tracks to your computer.

Where do you think the whole extrapolation of 1:1 comes from? Do you really think it is some benevolent act of SC? Hell no. It comes from the historic application and interpretation of the Law.

SC "claims" they grant you a 1:1 pass but, in fact the Congressional Committe on Copyrights demands it, and the courts have upheld it repeatedly. Compensation would not change my position on an audit since it remains entirely up to a plaintiff to demonstrate that those rights have been over-stepped. I have no legal obligation to prove a negative, even in a civil suit.

Secondly, you are simply initiating a Pay-to-Play scheme whereby anyone with at least 1 set of discs can waltz through an audit and then proceed to do exactly what the audit presumes to prevent. The solution here has to be within the source material itself - not in some arbitrary private gestapo.

 

I disagree Proformance....a audit requires a disc for each system...we have 3 systems and must show a disc for each track on each system We could not show one set of discs and use them on all three. We have passed our first Skype audit with SC and look forward to completeing our FULL audit when we go to NC for "the big three". You are entitled to your conflicting opinion and it is possible that your opinon will not change until some of the cases have completed the legal system. We prefer to move ahead and help karaoke as an industry survive and prosper.

 

Um...hello......where did Proformance say anything about duplicating 3 systems for 3 unique users?

I said it is not illegal to rip your disc to your computer....period. You have a legal right to play and perform the track in whatever manner you elect.

You are also confusing the number of computers with the number of systems and ignoring the real focus of the copyright law which is on the user. For any serious host - 2 computers (HDs) comprise 1 system because, the best backup is a 2nd substitute computer (HD) and not a pile of system incompatible discs. An attempted law suit against a KJ with 2 identical computers in his booth will fail.

The mere existence of a copy is not enough to substantiate a claim of priacy. You must demonstrate that the copy is intended for more than the original user/owner because, the basis of any copyright claim is damages.

Also, an audit is not a legal process or requirement - it is a private voluntary arrangement/agreement between you and SC.

 

Yet SC isn't suing for copyright infringement as so many others have pointed out to you, Pro. An audit would be required if one reaches the discovery phase of the lawsuit. If during the discovery phase it is shown they are 1:1 then the suit can and probably will be thrown out, but until then if all is needed to clear you is an audit, Why wouldn't one choose to go that route? Principle. Again, all SC, CB or PH has to say in court they never gave the permission to display their logo on any screen and they win unless one has a letter stating they do have the permission and I doubt SC, CB or PH would let it get that far.

 

Pro when you said "Secondly, you are simply initiating a Pay-to-Play scheme whereby anyone with at least 1 set of discs can waltz through an audit and then proceed to do exactly what the audit presumes to prevent." I took that to be refering to more than 1 HD copy of each disc hence my reply. If you intended something diffrent please explain.

"You are also confusing the number of computers with the number of systems and ignoring the real focus of the copyright law which is on the user. For any serious host - 2 computers (HDs) comprise 1 system because, the best backup is a 2nd substitute computer (HD) and not a pile of system incompatible discs. An attempted law suit against a KJ with 2 identical computers in his booth will fail."
It is my understanding that we can not have a second "backup" HD copy of our discs. We are lucky enough at this time to have a backup system available (we would pull out the "b" or "c" HD and books) if we were to have a HD failure and would have to re-rip system"a" if that were to happen. (our systems are not identicle)I will clarify this with SC and CB during our trip.

 

I totally agree with KJathena as I had that happen and ripped from a second set of discs. My original main discs got stolen. Even If I had a second system, I would keep a second set of discs. For backup I would run disc based. In fact I am thinking of picking up a player that will play MP3+G discs so I can use the same books for my disc based backup.

 

Danny, How is having a set of mp3+g discs copied from your originals as a second backup different from having mp3+g second backup on a second drive? i am confused on that one.

 

Paradigm Karaoke,
I am not Danny but as he posted somewhere previosly...his main collection if discs was stollen and he had to reload using his second smaller collection of discs. He was refering to using the discs he used to reload his drive as backup instead of a second HD copy. He is speaking of looking for a MP+G player I think to be able to play his GEM discs that he is trying to get:biggrinpill:

 

It should be obvious to you that a SC audit does not prevent piracy. There is nothing to prevent someone with at least one set of discs from voluntarily passing an audit and then multiplying them right under your nose.

Why? - because the manufacturer says so? It's bull___t. You can have as many redundant drives as it takes to secure your performance. It's not the copies that matter - it's the number of unique users.

2 or 3 drives and 1 KJ/show is not piracy - it's called redundancy.

Don't bother, they are both disingenous. Go and talk to a federal judge and ask him what the prospects are for an infringement case for using rendundant drives. His answer is sure to make you angry at some of the things you are being told by manufacturers.

Face it, it is unlikley that anyone participating in this online debate is a concern for them - yet, they continue to decieve and frighten even their best customers (you for example) with over-stated legal claims in order to sell you more product than you legally need.

Have a license or an original for each unique system you run. But, don't be goaded by manufacturers into believeing that redundant backups are piracy. Is it logical to take your legal advice from pimps with product in one hand and threats in the other? Find someone impartial.

 

Proformace...I am not taking legal counsel from the Manus....I am following what MY trademark/copyright ATTNY has said.I beleive that she is very impartial and well educated in her specialty.You are corect that someone could pass an audit and then with larceny in their heart duplicate the drive. If/When that happens I am certain they will be proscuted out of the business and punished legally to the extent of the law.
I have a paralegal freind that works for a federal judge and I will ask her if he would be willing to dicuss this matter with me. If I get any wisdom from him I will be happy to follow up on this board.

 

You "friend of a judge" is not a judge and every judge is different. So whatever this judge says is simply opinion. This is irrelevant, however the likelihood is that any judge will not allow a fishing expedition regarding tracks that were NOT played during the "investigation."

Any attorney is free to request as much information as they like (i.e. they can ask for the kitchen sink) but it doesn't mean that a judge will allow it and any defense attorney with 2 hours of experience in traffic court will know to object to that request immediately.

 

I believe Proformance is correct. I can make as many copies of my hard drive or discs as I want.
It is the USE of those hard drives or discs that is the issue here.
For example, if I copy my discs to a hard drive and then make three copies of that hard drive, but only ever USE ONE at any given time, I am NOT in violation of copyright.
There is simply no loss to the copyright holder just because I have three hard drives gathering dust in my closet.
The same can be said for discs. If I were to take my disc collection and make 3 backup copies of the discs, as long as I use only ONE set at a time, there is NO copyright infringement. Just because I have 3 sets gathering dust, does not indicate that I have caused a loss to the copyright holder. I simply haven't. All I've done is protect my investment.