posted
Gentlemen, It would not be the smartest thing to do to use the IP Justice web site as your loophole. If you read that carefully you'll see that in several places they say that fair use for karaoke cdg's especially for commercial use is illegal, but that they think that they could beet it in court. At least, that would take someone paying them who knows how much and how many years in court. Another glich in there theory might be the actual fair use act itself,which does state sound recording. NOT sound and visual. Another glich might be the case their using Stellar vs Abkko. There right in that the judge and the appeals court upheld that a karaoke cdg is an audiovisual work. That means that it not legal to make a copy even for personal use much less commercial. If it is an audiovisual work it falls under the same copyright protection as movies. There is a case in the ninth circuit court that has been submitted to try and over turn that decision that has stood since 1996. Which may or not be succesful. Only a couple of years will tell. However that would probably only go to personal use not commercial. SC is being very loose in there interpretation that at this time it is legal even for a personal copy.
Posts: 39 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe somebody should sue under the Disabilities Act stating that the lyrics are an accessibility tool for deaf and hard of hearing people seperate from the musical form. No more karaoke, simply musical reproductions with synchronized captioning. Use one overly broad and vague law to fight another.
Mind you I know nothing about the law and I am strictly speaking out of my butt.
[ January 06, 2007, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: enemil ]
Posts: 40 | From: VA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
* Sound Choice, nor any other karaoke manufacturer in the US, can 'give' any KJ or any other karaoke user permission to do something that said manufacturer does NOT have the right to give. I.E., give any individual or group the right to make copies of licensed song compositions, even if they own the original disc/media – unless they have negotiated that right from each copyright owner. This is black and white, not gray. (You’re going to have to take my word on this, that that right has likely never been successfully negotiated; at least not with a US publisher.)
BC, I think you meant to stick a "Neither" at the beginning of the above quote.
Since after BC's post people still don't seem to understand why SC can't grant permission for format shifting but can tell people they can't forum shift, let me try a short version.
SC, and all publishers, need to license the songs they turn into CDGs from the publishers of the songs. Those licenses determine the maximum rights that SC can in turn grant to the end users of the products. In addition, SC has rights in the karaoke version and can decide what rights it wants to give to end users. SC has said the publishers won't license the music for karaoke downloads, so SC can't give permission for people to use their karaoke songs as downloads. However, since SC has the right to use the music within the terms of its license, it then has the right to tell its users not to use its songs in a manner inconsistent with the license.
By way of a simple exampke, suppose I owned the rights to Mickey Mouse. I could license you the right to use Mickey's image for toys but not for clothing or anything else. If you used Mickey's image, for say, peanut butter, you would violate the terms of the license. I could also give you the right to sublicense the use of Mickey's image to third parties, again only so long as it was used fot toys. I could also limit your right to sublicense and say you can make any toy you want but only give other people the right to make babies' toys. If you sublicensed the right to use Mickey's image to Joe for toys and he tried to make guns with Mickey's image you could tell him not to so because that was violating his license. Conversely, you could not give him the right to make guns in the first place because you don't have that right from me.
This is all clear and basic law. The next question of whether you need a license to format shift a CDG or whether it is an inherent right under the copyright laws has already been covered to death. But again CD = sound only and is not the same as an audiovisual CDG, at least according to the only current case on the subject, and that case is also clear.
Much as I've encouraged our resident VH fan to go after the publishers I encourage those of you who want to use computers to write your Congressman rather than SC and get the laws changed to accomodate you. Good luck.
Posts: 1261 | From: Milton, MA 02186 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I had a 'Neither' to open that sentence ("Neither SC or Stellar can give"), then chose not to make it look like I was speaking for Stellar, so I changed it - but I forgot to change the "can" to a "can't". (It only completely changes the meaning, eh.) Thanks.
Downhome, you're just not getting it - I'm sorry that I couldn't explain it more concisely and clearly. I thought it was completely obvious that this discussion had nothing to do with personal/private use, and was only about commercial use.
And that is a distinction that is clearly made in the laws regardiNg copying copywritten songs.
On that note, this discussion has clearly gone nowhere but around and around in circles, and there is no expectation that it will be anything productive (again).
[ January 06, 2007, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: BC/Studio Manager ]
Posts: 4262 | From: Charlotte, N.C., USA | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to ask and I want a straight forward answer from SC on this. When someone who uses your CDGs, that they have bought from you and paid for in full price, on a computer for use in a show and they use it 1:1 (they do not use these discs on multiple computers only 1 computer per 1 cdg), what type of impact does this have or what is the extent of harm to the market or potential market of the original work caused by the infringement.
If we buy each and every disc from Sound Choice and transfer them to 1 computer, what type of impact does that have on your profit? I already know you claimed that replacement CDG's bring you in little to no revanue.
Why am I asking this everyone might ask. Well under fair use laws if you can prove that you using these discs in a 1:1 format on your computer does not cause any harm to the market then you have a resonable fair use argument. Even if it is for commercial use.
If you check online you can find a fair use wizard. I gave SC extreme copyright protection, that I am using all of the quality of the orginal, that it would be used for commercial use, and that my actions having my music on computer would cause no harm to the market. It comes to tell me that I would have a fair use argument since my actions (not saying other people only my own) causes no damage to SC or their profit. Or can you prove my use of computerized karaoke cuts into your profit to the point you are losing money that can put you put of business?
The more research I do the more I find out that there are exceptions to the laws. It looks that SC would have to prove that the person who is infringing on the laws is causing harm to the market. Someone 1:1 is not... someone with 1:5 is and SC would win that case hands down but when it comes to that a person using 1:1 is doing no harm that person is most likley to win the case. The only problem is there has been no cases taken to court but if people used this type of loophole or protection to the consumer we will put it they might or will win the case.
quote: Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work; (This means how deserving is the work for copyright protection)
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined.
1. Commercial 2. Extermely 3. 100% of the CDG is used 4. The way I used the work has no effect.
When answered this way I am told that anyone would have resonable fair use argument as long as it is used in a 1:1 ratio. If used in 1:2 or more they then are infringing and can be prosacuted.
I am now burnt out on reading copyright laws for the day.
Posts: 30 | From: IA, MN, WI | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
- The Fair Use provision does not extend to any commercial environment. It is for home/personal use.
But, to address the obvious, the financial impact would be for using a computer file for multiple rigs - clearly illegal, and by eliminating (for the most part) the replacement when the original is damaged or worn out. (The same concept that applies to most commodities in life - tires, cars, clothes, etc.)
- More to the point, and I guess you're just choosing to ignore this: * Sound Choice, nor any other karaoke manufacturer in the US, canNOT 'give' any KJ or any other karaoke user permission to do something that said manufacturer does NOT have the right to give. I.E., give any individual or group the right to make copies of licensed song compositions, even if they own the original disc/media – unless they have negotiated that right from each copyright owner. This is black and white, not gray. (You’re going to have to take my word on this, that that right has likely never been successfully negotiated; at least not with a US publisher.)
That's the name of that tune.
Posts: 4262 | From: Charlotte, N.C., USA | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
