Karaoke Forums

With all the discussion on this topic, MTU the producers of karaoke software has funded Legal counsel of international  copyright law to research, and report findings on the format shifting, and using backup copies in shows. Here is the path to their findings.

http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/02/22/karaoke_legal_myths/

This may or may not be definitave enough to make you comfortable, But I thought it was worth the mention.  A Big thanks to the People at MTU for funding this research.

_________________
______________________________________
I'm Not Dead yet...... But every day Im getting Closer !

Thanks EElvis for that link it adds to my attempt to provide light on the subject and invariably substataniates what I tried to express.  It certainly adds to my respect for MTU and demonstrates what I tried to explain in another thread. If the manus would support legal KJ'S and give them an edge over fly by nighters like every successful corp has done over the years then ours would be a honest and respectable business Could you imagine Sound Choice releasing new hit tracks to selected certified KJ'S before releasing them and selling cd's  to the general public? Their customer relations program and selling plan smacks of a 9 year olds lemonade stand for gods sake.

If I was a youngster again I would walk into their office and flat tell them I have a plan.... They cannot see beyond their nose and millions have suffered but I will tell you what Gradually public opinion will determine the market and trends not supreme court laws..

I could eliminate piracy in one year but it would take some old fashioned business practices and not lobbyists or laws but simple customer relations schemes that have been proven by hard experience..

_________________
Join The Karaokle Singers Social Network. Upload Your Music!!

That link is OPINION by the lawyers that were hireded by MTU to support MTU's standing on format shifting.

The law is the law, and it is still ILLEGAL ,no matter how idiotic it may be, to format shift for comercial use.

If I were sued by a karaoke manu company, I woulld hire the lawyers from IPJustice to defend me.

Here's an FYI for you, the IP Justice site was up long before mtu.  MTU states it hired them to research this,  The mtu site use to refer to the IP site to show how "legal" they areand at that time made no reference to them neing the ones who hired them .and only recently has claimed it hired them to research this. If you read the IP justice site You'll see that in several places they say that there opinion is not supported by the law  as it reads, but they think they could get it changed if they took it to court. That site has been there for at least 3 yrs that I know of ( no takers yet ). The two cases that they site have nothing to do with what there trying to do.  The one case is stellar vs abbko publishing which is the case that decided that stellar could not make rolling stones karaoke discs without abbco's permission due to the synch licensing required to put the lyrics on the screen. the other has to do with taking small pieces of a audio work and using it in another song. Basically the two attorneys at IP Justice are saying you pay us a lot of money and we can maybe win this, in their opinion. If you read further you'll see that what they would be trying to do is make karaoke  "fair use" which would still not make it legal for commercial use only personal use. on a hard drive

wow, that stuff makes sense to me!  not that it is law, yes everybody, I understand that.  but saying some of the stuff i've been thinking and couldn't get out of my tiny brian.  the KJ playing the "LEGAL" hard drive probably wouldn't stand up in a court of law if taken there.  laws are interpreted-----(key word, tricky phrase) by people with common sense eventually, hopefully.

Is there a point to this post? Seems like you are blasting someone who paid for reesearch to try & help clear up points which so far (and may still be) unclear.     To some, even after the courts ruling it will still be illegal, as they plan to use 20 year old technology to present their shows with making everyone except them illegal.

E. (TCB)

_________________
______________________________________
I'm Not Dead yet...... But every day Im getting Closer !

In the main text they say that a court would be likely to find that a KJ copying legally purchased discs onto a hard drive fell under the protection of "fair use" despite being a commercial use, assuming no multi-rigging or anything like that.  They state, correctly from what I understand, that whether or not the use is commercial is only one factor in the legal analysis of whether something is considered fair use, and cite a few cases where commercial use was protected by fair use (those cases are not very similar factually, but at least it illustrates cases where commerical use was not held to be infringement).

Here is where I think their analysis gets a bit shaky, though.  If you check the footnote, they cite four factors that courts are supposed to consider in determining fair use.  The first is whether or not the use is commercial.  They admit that works against a finding of fair use.  The next is "the nature of" the copyrighted work.  They don't discuss this factor and I'm not sure who it would favor in the case of karaoke CDGs.  The third factor is how much of the copyrighted work is used.  They don't discuss this, and it works against a finding of fair use, as the entire copyrighted work is used, not just a sample as in some of the earlier cases they cited.  The fourth factor is the effect of the copying on innovation and the market.

The fourth factor probably works in favor of a finding of fair use, although if I was the copyright holder I'd argue that format-shifting to an mp3 format makes piracy so much easier to accomplish that it reduces the potential legal market for the copyrighted work.  Still, if you assume the fourth factor weighs in favor of fair use, out of the other three factors, two weigh against fair use.  

From this they conclude that the courts would "likely" find a fair use.  I'm not entirely convinced.

_________________
Reward: nine yen in drawer.

Hypothetically, if the court ruled that 1:1 copying and format shifting was illegal, what would those doing it do.  Will you go back or quit?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I would probably not do a paying gig if that happened.  But I haven't done one yet anyway!  But I'm thinking about doing one.  It would have to be ironclad in your face "1 to 1 copies are illegal" even if you own all the discs.  And the penalty would have to be stiff enough to make it a truly unworthy risk, because I don't think it is morally wrong to use your hardrive if you own the discs.  In fact, I think the law is unjust.  my $.02

as far as bars/clubs go, I would quit. But I quit clubs a long time ago. I only do private parties, and I wouldnt worry about it for a small private party. It really isn't worth doing KJ for clubs anymore around here.

_________________
______________________________________
I'm Not Dead yet...... But every day Im getting Closer !

Wouldn't make a difference to me, my discs & players will always be set up just as they would be - mainly for backup purposes.  I would just prefer to use the computer - but if I saw KJ's who buys all their originals & transferring them to computer never using the originals WHILE the computer is playing going down, I would have a really nice home computer!

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

ANOTHER INTERESTING ARTICLE

RIAA president speaks out on Fair Use
14 November 2006 8:53 by Davedough

In a recent article, RIAA president Cary Sherman took time out of his busy day full of lawsuits to comment on what he refers to as a gross misinterpretation of Fair Use.

The Fair Use section of the Copyright Act in question is what regularly comes under fire from the record labels and movie industry. It is clearly stated that it serves the best interest of the consumer in that he or she may lawfully consume the content they purchased in the time, place and manner of their choosing. Instead, the recording industry would have consumers pay multiple times for the same content in their fight to restore funding for the artists who make the content available.

Sherman describes Fair Use as an "an undeniably important plank of copyright law," and continuing to say that it is "in danger of losing its meaning." He further goes on to say that Fair Use is intended for criticism, news and scholarship and that "it is certainly not an excuse to boost the sales of electronic devices and services on the backs of hard-working creators."

In the article, Sherman takes direct aim at his archenemy in his quest for digital abolishment, the group known as Digital Freedom. Digital Freedom was launched a few months ago by the Consumer Electronics Association to counter lobbying actions taken by the RIAA and bring the consumer into the limelight and stop further plans on making DRM policies more strict. Digital Freedom holds true to their statement in saying that Fair Use rights are "under attack by the big recording labels and studios, who would ultimately deprive individuals of the right to communicate using digital technology."

Sherman took an accusatory stab at the CEA and Digital freedom stating that their campaign is not only based on false and incendiary rhetoric, but tries to sully their name saying that the CEA is not concerned at all with consumer rights, rather with their own bottom line figures. Sherman retaliates with thinking that its OK to make a profit "But to seize the mantra of 'consumer rights' to advance that business interest is simply disingenuous. And to do it at the expense of creators' right to be compensated for their work is short-sighted."

What Sherman doesn't realize is that to say that the CEA and Digital Freedom's lobbying actions are taking money away from the creators as their only platform is false. The CEA is opposed to Senate actions proposed by the RIAA such as the INDUCE Act. Introduced in 2004, its purpose was to hold manufacturers such as Apple accountable for creating devices that even give a portal to possible copyright infringement. Thankfully the act never made it to the committee, but there are still multiple acts proposed to the Senate regularly by the RIAA to take rights away from the consumers.

It appears that Sherman doesn't understand the interpretation of the word fair. If he is, in fact, trying to be fair, he needs to include consumers into his own considerations along with the record labels, songwriters and such. Is it not true that if it weren't for the consumers themselves, artists and record labels wouldn't have the revenue they currently have?

Source: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/8123.cfm
CNet

_________________
______________________________________
I'm Not Dead yet...... But every day Im getting Closer !

thanks elvis!  good reading