Karaoke Forums

Saying there is no demand is a fallacy (and also false......but one thing at a time).

1) The ONLY way anything can be pirated is to make copies of it available.
2) The GEM series is not online (that I have ever found) so it can't be pirated that way.
3) The only way to prove that it would be pirated online would be for it to appear online. Something which no one seems to have done. So Chip gets to sit back in a perfectly defensible position because there is no way to prove his "no demand" theory wrong.

Except.......

If no one wants to pirate higher quality versions of songs that have been out for years, why are higher quality versions of "oldies" available on Torrent and iRC sites? Why are there low bit rate and high bit rate versions of karaoke tracks on the pirate sites?

I will chalk this up to multiple pirates ripping at different bit rates over time. Not necessarily demand driven and no way to prove that it is.

However, there seems to be a trend for older karaoke tracks that were ripped at low bit rates to be re-ripped at higher bit rates and placed online. It isn't a flood my any means, but it is happening. One example -



So why would someone who has access to "oldies" discs from which to make a new rip, waste their time creating a higher quality rip to place online when there are lower quality rips that have been there for 15+ years?

Because there actually is DEMAND -

(screen shot from a torrent message forum)



So.....

Higher quality rips of content are being made, and being asked for.

Fallacy Destroyed. Falsehood exposed.

_________________
-Chris

And then there is this....




Kaboom....

_________________
-Chris

Many of the news sites claim that torrent sites are blocking Windows 10 because it "Phones Home"..

I find that amusing..

The Link: http://news.softpedia.com/news/microsof ... 9827.shtml

The ADVANCE series will be available only to Certified KJs, HELP licensees, GEM series licensees, and verified original disc-based KJs.

We will supply a list of potential songs, based on our extensive database of customer requests, plus licensing and production requirements, and once the reservation period closes, those who have made reservations will vote to determine which songs get made.

No one has ever been required to make a purchase to settle with us, so I guess the number is zero. Everyone has had at least one other option.

But even if we were to indulge your hypothetical for a bit, why would we eliminate any purchases?

So there you have it, it won't be completely "Sight unseen" as some people have been complaining AND unless I am misinterpreting ANYONE who has bought several soundchoice discs in the past and is willing to PROVE it is eligible. That opens up their potential customer base QUITE a bit more.

-James

edit: And for those of you whom have asked me if I would pay $30 for a completely useless set of tracks the answet is normally, no I wouldn't but this is a special exception

$30 Just to prove Mr. Staley wrong is an EXCEPTIONAL value to me so It doesn't matter what they produce this time around, count me in!

Once again, I'll simply let your words speak for themselves that "no one has ever been required":








Ethics.... just ethics....

It's not my fault if you can't understand plain English.

No one is required to buy product as a condition of settling a lawsuit with us.

Many defendants choose to include product in their settlements because they don't legally have it otherwise and want to continue using it. That's their choice; there have always been settlement options that don't include product. Operators who have a sufficient amount of legal material already (but who exceeded what they legally had) are offered the option not to acquire more. Operators who prefer to go out of business don't have to buy more. Operators who want to drop the brand entirely don't have to buy more.

This is as clear as I can make it.

You mean "your English... today" or "your English.... yesterday?" it seems to continually change in definition... I understand how frustrating it is for you when your own words seem to trip you up like an iron snare... Sorry, I didn't write them, you did.


That's convenient to say.. today. But since it is in direct opposition with this statement by you:

It's only logical that one of them is not the truth... Doesn't really matter which one, the source is still the common denominator. (and that would be.... wait for it.... wait for it.... you)


And this portion is only your opinion... I would suggest a poll of all of the defendants that now have the series to see if it was really a "choice" or simply a "cheaper alternative" to an offer that would have included more dollars for zero product as a settlement option.

You can make it sound like a choice all you want, it won't make it any kind of ethically equitable choice at all.

Remember your client's product: RBTL?
It works here too.

Jim: Perhaps you and Kurt would like to join me and throw $30 from out of pocket to prove Mr. Staley wrong.

Hell you could even make it part of the subscription drive

The first 100 people to sign up with the added phrase "Here's my Money to prove Chip wrong" get a bonus music only track of you, kurt and what's left of the soundchoice staff doing a song like "uptown funk" or some other new fun song.

"What's left?" Now that's priceless!

Should be... perhaps a trio?

Take it from me and save your money. It is wholly ungratifying to prove Chip wrong because he either continues to twist things around to fit his agenda (see the purchase vs settle posts above) or he simply stops responding (see my posts proving demand above)

Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever seen Chip admit he is wrong about anything. No one is right all the time except in their own mind.

_________________
-Chris

Chris it was just a tounge-in-cheek kind of comment. AKA sarcasm.. I was planning to chip in for their first albumn when they announced the possibility WAY before any of this was happening

Fallacy Destroyed. Falsehood exposed..... again.

Completely anecdotal. I went to the mall and didn't find any Porche's. Therefor people dislike Porche's.

The reason you see so many 192k's is because that was the format of choice many years ago and those files are still being passed around. But this doesnt show a preference for ripping. If you were to re-rip ANY of those collections at higher bitrates, they would snatched be up.

If you truly believe that quality doesnt matter (and I don't think you really do. I think you took offense to my earlier post about people with seething anger and somehow thought that meant you), put some 320k songs up and see what happens. Hey, you wont get in trouble for sharing because nobody will want them and they will just sit there.



(Sigh). With so much out there, this is super easy to Cherry Pick. BTW the top seeder has over 17000! Not 5124. And it is "Age of Ultron" @1080i. There are multiple versions at 720p, 480p and even lower for mobile devices. Why didn't they take those? Quality doesnt matter!



What you have proven here, is that everyone doesnt have a 4K TV.

There is absolutely nothing contradictory between those two statements. Repeating that "one of them is not the truth" will not make one of them false, no matter how much you bold, underline, or italicize the text.

I know how frustrating it must be for you - unfortunately though, your own words are contradictory - Either it's used to "fufill settlements" or it's not. I'm not making this up - these are your words not mine, and I can only take them at face value. If you are somehow suggesting that an equitable "choice" is to either
(a) sign the contract and take the gem series as part of a settlement or,
(b) pay a few thousand more dollars if you don't or,
(c) go out of business entirely
then I wouldn't call that "a choice" at all would anyone else? There are other words for that kind of "choice."

Are they "technically" choices? Sure... are they equitable or ethical choices? You wrote them so I'm sure that to you, they seem fine.




Yeah, he probably didn't see any Porches at the ice cream store either, but he went to a torrent site and saw where 2 people downloaded a higher bitrate.... That obviously means "there's a HUGE demand."

Hahaha I stand corrected. You owned up to a simple math error. You could have just admitted to being wrong about the "demand" conversation instead of digging into your former postings. But I suppose that wouldn't have allowed you to copycat my tagline.

I am satisfied that you have been proven wrong and need no admission from you.

But I am curious about how you may twist the evidence in your favor so as to cast doubt in the minds of future readers.

_________________
-Chris

Shouldn't that be getting old for you?


Why would I admit to something like that when I've not been proven wrong? A handful of postings from a torrent or usenet site (if that's what they were) don't constitute an overwhelming "demand" by any market. You'd need a much larger consensus from a number of different places to keep from showing (your obvious) bias. (Ask Mr. Harrington how many KJ's he estimates are currently operating and see if that matches what his lawsuits estimate -- at around 30,000.)

Good. I'm glad you're happy. (you're wrong, but if you're happy then that's all that matters)

There's no need to "twist" anything because there is "no evidence worth a cow poop" that proves any market trend to start with when it comes to bitrate.

I also have faith that "future readers" aren't as dumb as you (or Mr. Harrington) believe they are.

We do use GEM series sets to fulfill settlements. Not all settlements, just the ones where product is a part of the settlement. That doesn't mean that anyone was forced to take it.

What you're apparently unable to grasp is that when we settle cases, we are looking for three things:

1) Discontinuing the infringement
2) Compensating us for the past infringement
3) Facilitating legal operation in the future, if the operator wants to continue

1 and 2 are mandatory. 3 is optional.



I'm not aware of anyone being required to pay more money if they didn't take product. That doesn't make sense, financial or otherwise.

If there has been a significant purchase of product in the past, then we also offer the option for a reduced settlement payment without product--we've referred to that as a "no disc" settlement. We have also offered that option if the operator will drop the brand entirely, but I've yet to see someone take that option.

Going out of business is an entirely appropriate choice for some pirate KJs, if they can't afford to operate legitimately. But it's nice to see you admit that we've offered that as a choice--after all, one of your complaints has been that we make no effort to get pirates out of business, and that we are only interested in turning them into customers.