Karaoke Forums

What's a measly 2% between friends?

They sold me fake Maestros back when they were a major player and I bought a set of pioneer dvds that were all burns w/ silk screened labels.

What's really funny AND IRONIC is that Sound Choice is constantly claiming that ALL of their tracks have all of the proper licensing and they continue business as usual as they file law suit after lawsuit against people who claim to be legal as well.Now, Sound Choice must know that they have produced cerrtain tracks without the prope licensing because they either have a cancelled check for the payment of those licenses or they don't.

Now, I'm thinking that the rights holders would not be filing these law suits against the karaoke manufacturers if they had been paid. There can be no denial by Sound Choice that these specific songs were made by them because their copyrighted logo is all over them.

When Sound Choice files a law suit against a KJ for media shifting that logo; they have no idea if the KJ owns each and every song that they have shifted on an original CD+G Disc. Sound Choice makes the unsound choice of assuming that every KJ is running their shows using illegal copies of their karaoke tracks and they expect every karaoke host to prove their ownership or they will be treated as criminals with ZERO probable cause for action.

Forcing a KJ to go through an audit is no different than the police searching your car or house without a search warrant. Any information or contraband found in such a search would ne inadmissable in a court of law as fruit coming from the forbidden tree. It's a shame that Sound Choice chooses NOT to be as forthcoming as they expect their customers to be. They hide behind their lawyers and their double speak to strong arm former customers into paying protection money to stay in business under threats of law suits that they have no basis for filing.

They might have had some plausible deniability if they had made all of those songs without logos in the first place.

Funny how Sound Choice claims innocence and is presumed innocent until proven guilty but when they conduct their business everyone is presumed guilty until they prove thier innocence.

Things are beginning to get very interesting.

...And that's what I don't like reading/hearing about. It's crazy because nothing seems to make sense to me. What's real and what's not...Plus, the counterfeit subject seems to pop up every now and then in different section in this forum and other places.

...I would have most likely bought directly from sound choice if they would have returned my phone calls or emails back in 2009 but had no other choice but to buy from some of their Authorized Dealers....or at least I hope they are? Especially since several of my purchases were shipped directly from SC.

Yes Bruce, I think you summed it up perfectly.

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

...I suppose the point I was trying to make, if memory serves me correctly, is that I found it odd that some of the his websites stated, "Serving Since 1993" and they had the same Physical Address. Many possibilities as far as what could have been or was as far what he opened/operated. Multiple start up stores, buyouts, merges, etc. I just wondered if he and or staff could have possibly been counterfeiting discs (cdgs, scdgs, mp3 discs, custom cdgs, etc.) and mixing them in with their legit stock? Not accusing him of anything but it seems like counterfeiting Karaoke CDG's could be or is big business. Especially in the era of "Prove It, Show Me Your Discs."

...I don't know? I appreciate you posting the documents because I'm sure KS Members need to stay informed as to what's going on, especially if they've made purchases from any of his stores (B&R or Online). Especially if he's an Authorized Dealer of the Manufacturers.

...I am curious as to why PHM/Stellar and the others are mentioned. Guess I'll just sit my buttocks on the bench and watch to see what happens, could be a long time sittin' the way things move.

I'm not sure there is a way I can answer your question without sounding like I'm giving an evasive, lawyerly answer.

I would like to be able to give you an easy, yes-or-no answer. It's not easy, because it's not like buying a fishing license, where you have it or you don't have it, and there is a defined start date and a defined expiration date. There are three separate licenses at issue for each work, and they may have different start dates and expiration dates. They may apply per-format or per-series. Here's an example: there are tracks that are on The Foundation (I) and the Diamond Series. Even though they are the same sound recording and almost identical graphics, they have different licenses that started and end on different dates.

A second complication is that the music publishers (and the manus) have a long tradition of informality. It is not uncommon for a publisher and a manu to exchange emails that say, "Go ahead and produce and sell, and we'll work out the paperwork later." Now, is that an "unlicensed" item? Technically, if there is not an integrated contract that expresses a license, then yes, it's "unlicensed." But if the publisher tried to sue on it, they would lose, because "course of dealing" beats "paperwork formality" in court 100 times out of 100.

A third complication is that we don't have any idea what product these defendants were distributing, other than the names of songs. Were these discs that SC produced? Or were they pirated copies of SC's tracks that the defendants produced? If they were discs that SC produced, were they produced and initially sold while they were licensed, and those licenses have since expired? (In which case, the First Sale Doctrine would apply.) Were they produced so long ago without a suit that the statute of limitations on them has run?

So what looks like a simple question is in reality a very complicated question, and it is one that I can't answer without literally hours of studying documents.

But what I can say is this: The GEM series and the Foundations and Bricks sets and all other discs that are licensed through MCPS that are currently being sold in the SC store are fully licensed for U.S. distribution. To speak to any other discs would require me to comb through tens of thousands of pages of documents and emails, which I am not prepared to do at this point. That does not mean that I suspect they might be unlicensed; it just means that I don't know the answer and am not in a position to find it out quickly.

I can see how that would be a lot of paperwork to go through.

How about just three examples?

Was Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean" ( Number 19 on the list ) completely licensed in all ways at ANY time?

Were Rod Stewart's "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" ( #35) and "Maggie Mae" (#109) licensed in all ways at ANY time?

If not, would you be kind enough to state what licensing ( of the three that you mentioned) they DID have?

Just three tracks to check, and I figure that asking if they were properly licensed at ANY time should simplify the answer for us on this forum..

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

The answer to your question is yes as to all three. They have all been fully licensed (and are currently, as I believe all three are GEM tracks). I don't need to look at papers to know that.

Which is why we're not sure what Warner is talking about.

...Perhaps Warner is confused?

you all seem to forget sound choice isn't sueing over the music....

they are sueing for the displaying of their logo on a media shifted pc!
that in itself has nothing to do with the liscensing of the music in question.

harrington law should make this point everytime they answer a question.... their vague responses are just that way on purpose.

_________________
It's all good!

Good to know. I was under the impression that neither of these two artists' tracks were ever licensed to any karaoke producer...

Learn something new every day, I guess....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

????......those tracks are done by everyone, why did you think none were authorized?
not snippy....curious.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

1) Well, as far as everyone doing the tracks, THE EAGLES can be found on:

Superstar Karaoke, Sound Choice, Music Maestro, BCI, Star Quest, Karaoke Party (Medacy), U-Best (Later known as Top Hits), Hot Stuff, Karaoke Hits, Nutech/SAV, Backstage, Mr. Entertainer, etc... ( I have excluded the UK brands such as Zoom, Legends, and Sunfly, as licensing over there is different and I don't know the situation).

Yet The Eagles have DEFINITELY never licensed tracks for karaoke here.


2) I have been given the impression that the other artists mentioned were of the same cloth per some trade articles that I have read. However, JH's statement could lead one to believe that my impression was erroneous. Until I can dig up more verifiable and postable information ( including those original trade articles mentioned) I have no reason to debate the point.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Then why does Hotel California show up on the GEM Emerald #1 set?

Track 10108-12

http://www.soundchoicestore.com/SonglistEmerald1.csv

It's Frye and Henley who don't allow their songs to be licensed (anymore). Hotel California has a third author. The copyright laws allow any joint author to issue licenses.

so as long as there is one credited author of the song approving the use in karaoke it can be done overriding the others? what about a weird situation....just understanding, not arguing you on this....
Bernie Taupin & Elton John, Elton writes the music, Bernie writes the lyrics. If Elton approves and Bernie denies, can the lyrics still be synced without the lyric authors approval, and visa versa for the music.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

As long as the authors of the underlying work prepared their contributions with the intent that they be merged into one work--such as when Taupin writes lyrics for Elton to compose music to--then the work is a joint work, and each author owns an undivided fractional interest in the whole work. So, yes.

thank you, that is interesting. like Joe said, guess you learn something every day.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Well, remember that while we think of Rod Stewart and Michael Jackson as singer-songwriters--which they are/were--each of those three songs had a co-writer, and the Copyright Act gives each joint author the right to license. Rights may therefore end up in the hands of several publishers, any of whom can license the track. Single-publisher tracks are uncommon.