David, I am not berating you at all I just do not think that you know what you are talking about.. The Copyright Act/s in various countries exist soley to PROTECT and PRESERVE the FINANCIAL entitlements (called royalties) to the 'creators' for their 'intellectual property'... in this case the former being 'composers' and the latter being music.. This is the ONLY reason for the Copyright Acts...otherwise there would be no need for it/them. Now in order for a case of Copyright violation to be PROVEN in court (you have to PROVE allegations in courts of law David) the accusers must PROVE that the composers LOST financially due to the accused MAKING financial gains by USING that composer's 'intellectual property' and where thus that composer/s has, under the copyright law that entitlement (to those financial gains) If no MONEY or FINANCIAL GAIN can be proven then there is no case However I bet that you are of the following view (see as an example): Say I recorded Hound Dog...saved it on CD..let my friends hear it....and uploaded it for others to hear it on the internet...FREE OF CHARGE. Your view is that the composer of Hound Dog nevertheless has the RIGHT to ask for royalties from me anyway. After all I used his/her song so I should 'cough up' even though I myself got nothing for it. WRONG....WRONG...WRONG! The law is fairer than that David. The composer of Hound Dog is NOT entitled to ask for royalties from my Centrelink pension or bank account...but ONLY if I made a DIRECT financial gain (and PROVED it in court) from that song s/he composed. If I made NONE (as I have done) the PERCENTAGE royalties enititlement of nothing.....is..............NOTHING! So you see David violation of copyright law is more complicated than you think

REPLY from David
I'm surprised that you think that with your limited research and without reference to the Copyright Act that you believe you understand it more than I - that seems not to make commonsense. Do you think that the difference between us is that I'm interpreting the Act whilst you're trying to pick out words to justify your infringement of copyright over many years? You are quite mistaken in believing that a case for copyright infringement can be actionable only in the case of proveable financial loss. The fact that fines, and even prison, have been awarded against those infringing in the past shold tell you that prosecution is of a criminal nature as well as civil cases for loss being able to be brought. Normally, a prosecution would be brought by the government, and if successful would be followed by litigation of a civil nature by the copyright holders seeking compensation for their loss. I agree with you that in your case their loss might extend only to a minimal amount in lost copyright fees, and it's therefore unlikely that such a civil case against your would be pursued. This doesn't, however, mean that you're not infringeing copyright, and not risking criminal prosecution by your infrimging copyright. Your example of using 'Hound Dog' is correct in that you would be liable for copyright fees whether or not you personally financially benefitted from your use. I don't think that they will be concerned about the amount of money you have, or don't have, in making their case - and neither will being a pensioner put you above any law.
Submitted by karagoer on 13-09-2009

Meet karaoke hosts and singers in the Where2sing.com forums . . .

Where2sing.com