Hello from Chartbuster!

Pro, do you have a citation that could help clear this up? Everything that I have found on "Fair Use" decisions has specified "Personal Use" and the wording actually excluded "Commercial." As in, it actually says on the decision that one can give one's music portability by format/time shifting for personal use but this does not apply to commercial use.

For example, you are able to record a movie off the television to watch later in your own home but you can't record one and then take it to a theater and charge money to let other's watch it. Guess you can't even buy a movie on DVD and charge money for others to watch it. Same for making copies of karaoke. If you have a copy of a decision that actually says anything different, it would be nice to have a link.

 

Also, there are independent "measuring sticks" from which to judge whether something is too good to be true. I would dare say that nearly everyone knows that iTunes songs are $0.99 each and that other sites might have them for a little cheaper. (And the cheapest legal Karaoke video (lyric wipes)download site is $1.49 a song). But let's use $0.99 for simplicity sake. So, someone buys a loaded hard drive which they should have a reasonable idea costs about $89 - $149 for a terrabyte (they are ony advertised in every Sunday circular and on-line site for this price range, depending on brand). And they get 100,000 songs included, which they know should cost at least $0.99 a song - and they get all this for $250 - $300. Hmm, even with only 5th grade math ability they can guestimate that they got a deal that was "too good to be true".

So you can't even argue that the public doesn't know it's not legal - they know!! And so does every Karaoke host who buys and uses one and that's why if it ever went to court, they wouldn't have any chance to convince a judge and jury of their innocence.

 

Yeah, as in "Easy to Steal" Street. I thought that is the very problem we are arguing over here. Too many are choosing that route.

I might have missed the post where you said you were willing to help combat the on-line resellers. Or did you not agree to help out? Funny, out of all professed "anti-piracy" folks who are also anti-SC and CB methodology, only ThunderHag (to my recollection) said they would be willing to help.

 

So keeping myself legal isn't enough for you? And now we're anti-CB "in your opinion??? You assume alot.

The reasons for you and your actions being under attack are repeatedly stated here, wether or not you choose to read them. You, and only you made the bed you're lying in. Don't try to blame it on other manu's.

And BTW, how in the hell do you know what myself and others do in this area to better the industry?? Do I have to report all these things to you?

 

Exactly, thank you Diafel.

Except it was specifically the year 2000... April 11th, to be very exact.

Since it's obvious that Kurt either ignored it or skipped over it, (how convenient), it was sent to their offices via certified/return receipt service from the United States Postal Service. Article no: Z 166 794 274 which was received and signed for by a Sherry Wooldridge on April 14th, 2000.

And just for all the "snoopy people" out there: That's all you get, don't ask for anymore.

 

Wow you keep great records! Holy Heck i wish I was that organized!

 

i thought keeping yourself legal was the best way to help our industry start getting back on its feet.

 

It amazes me what a convenient and selective memory you have. Your cheerleaders keep wanting to purchase my Slep-Tone discs... and I've offered them to you... again with no response.

Skid's audit was nothing more than a charade.

In case I forget: IN MY OPINION.

 

So now we have to prove ourselves to be anti-pirate not only by professing undying love for all things SC, but now we also must prove it by "helping out"?
Where does it end?
I thought just owning our discs and being 1:1 (for those that use computers to host) was enough. Perhaps I am wrong. :errpill:

 

What are lawyers advising the people you've wrongly accused?

 

1. "Fair use" is not relevent, don't even bother with it.
2. In a club or bar, you are not the commercial user - the venue is.

The legal term is "use in commerce." The commerce being conducted and benefitting from the music is: food and beverage sales. You being paid to play is not relevent - you are trading labor not product. So do not let your ego (or Kurt) lull you into a belief that you personally are a "commercial user" simply because you get paid to turn on the music.

If the music files belong to the venue SC can file under copyright if they are without rights - but, if the music belongs to the KJ the club can only be held liable for public use of the trademark. SC has no standing on performance royalties, and SC's only interest in the venue is the deep pocket of their insurance company.

SC squeezes the DJ between losing his job with a now irrate venue and submitting to a self-incriminating audit (which is never in his best interest even if a legitimate collector.) The audit removes a very large legal hurdle and litigation cost facing SC - while "suggestnig" a quick solution with an over-priced re-run product and restrictive lease agreement. Getting the KJ to buy more music is less risky than going up against the venue's insurance company in litigation.

Take note of who is conspicuously missing from these actions: mobile KJs.
Mobile KJs at private events have no such trademark liability, and there is no "commerce" being conducted. They can only be held liable for copyright violations supported by actaul physical evidence and first hand testimony. Without the venue there is no rock to squeeze them against.

3.Judicial expectation is that even statutory damages must have at least a relative basis in some actual damages. Judicial opinion currently recognizes that a uniform singular transfer to a computer for the purpose of playback produces no damages whether explicitly "authorized" or not.

 

Don't worry. You are correct. It's only around here that you're expected to go above and beyond. Or at least talk the talk.:dancing_pill::dancing_pill::dancing_pill:

 

If I was simply a laborer, I wouldn't be classed as an independent contractor for tax purposes. Because I bring my own tools (the discs, the sound system, the lights) and decide when I will come, I am not just a laborer. I am a business. The use of the discs makes the business a profit--whether it be at private party or not. The costs of the discs are fair to deduct as business expenses. Commercial.

The courts have found that transferring music to a computer without first purchasing it IS a loss. They have awarded huge damages for it. Those damages may have been later reduced but the act of transferring the music wihout paying for it was not excused nor ruled an acceptable use.

I don't take Kurt's word for things. I keep reading these court cases and decisions trying to figure out who is getting it correctly. The cases on format/time shifting that I have found have all specified "personal home use."

 

And there's the stickler. Without first paying for it. So, what if you paid for it first, as in the case of computer users who are "legit"?

And there's the rub. There are NO cases that have gone to court specifically for commercial use, or for karaoke, for that matter. Until there is, we can argue and suppose until we are blue in the face and it makes no lick of difference to anyone. The question is undecided, and will remain so until there is a case FULLY TRIED IN COURT!
So all this arguing back and forth and accusing one another of this or that and the personal attacks is only serving to divide the karaoke community as a whole (No, I'm NOT including pirates in the karaoke community!).
What really should be happening is that we, as a community with the same general interest, should be bonding together, despite our differences of opinions (cause that's all they are, folks!). We should be focusing on the GOOD aspects of the career we chose and the passion of our hobby. Not demanding that one should or shouldn't do this or that or think this way or that way in order to be a "good little karaoke denizen".
We all have one thing in common: a love of karaoke. Why can't we just focus on that?

 

While I appreciate the thought, that's not quite right. While I have no illegal burns, I have backups of every single disc that I have bought- or that disc would not be added to my library. I will say that each disc label is clearly marked as a backup.

However, for those who wonder, I would add that using a backup disc IN THE SHOW is perfectly legal, though some mfrs. might tell you differently. Since I bought the disc ( with the single site usage license that goes with it), there is no problem. The same goes for software, movie, and audio discs.

Single site ONLY. In other words, if I were to copy and become a multi-rigger, THAT would be illegal.

That's what backups are FOR.

BTW- that doesn't include media shifting, even going back in the day. A tape has to be backed up to a tape, a disc to a disc.

Not saying anything else is illegal, only that it's a gray area which I feel better left alone.

Of course, all of the above is based on buying and owning the ORIGINAL media from the factory...

 

Why should I? I have yet to see them go after anyone without an investigation, or do anything that would annoy anyone yet, nor do I neccesarily believe that they will. They seem to be running on a different track than SC.

Have to wait and see. Heck, I still have some SC discs in the show too. Some are actually VERY good- as I've stated in the past, apparently unnoticed- and tough to replace. I probably have around 15 discs out of my1800 left.

 

I've got to agree, but for different reasons. Even using the .99 price, if a KJ has 100,000 songs, he supposedly spent $99,000 on his library. If that were true, and the average of $150/show I see posted here were correct, it would take 667 shows just to break even on music, not even including equipment.

I average around 260 bar shows a year (5 days /week)- not including any private events. this means, even if he could book that many as a newbie, would he really work 2.5 years for what equals FREE? No profit? I'm guessing......NO.

 

Not exactly. Startup costs (including the $99k of music) are usually amortized over a 5 year period so in this case, the KJ wouldn't be working for "free"... because half of the income would go to the KJ and the other half to the costs... which will be tax deductible and amortized with depreciation over the 5 year period too.

The KJ is not going to make a ton of money, but he won't be broke either.

 

Disagree. He may generate cash flow, but he won't be "making money".

However, I was talking about initial outlay.

If one finds a relatively new KJ with this many songs, do you think he layed out $99,000.00 just to wait 2.5 years to get it back? That would be ridiculous. Most legit hosts start with a certain amount of songs, see what's popular, and build along the way as they can afford it. There is absolutely no good business reason to START ( or for that matter, even HAVE) 100K songs. There is simply no use for that many.

 

Except to compete with pirate KJ's but to do that you either have to find a KJ going out of the business that has collected that many discs or worse become a pirate yourself. But you're right Joe, with the right set of songs one could get away with say 600 songs. You'd get laughed out the door though. Which is why I am trying to get my disc collection back to the level I had it before my main collection got stolen. And I am doing it the right way by doing what I did before by building it up as I go. I am outlaying more cash right now then I am generating but to make money you gotta spend it or so they say.