|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
Author |
Message |
johnreynolds
|
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:16 am |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:06 am Posts: 844 Been Liked: 226 times
|
djdon wrote: With the exception of the GEM series, PEP should be sued by Stingray (or whoever now owns the music that the SC trademark is being associated with) for allowing the use of music PEP doesn't own or control in association with the trademark. Or at the VERY least be forced to dissolve the HELP "license".
"Don't use our music with your trademark." I thought Kurt Slep owns PEP (SC) and his brother Derrick Slep owns Stingray. So he should sue his own brother?
|
|
Top |
|
|
jdmeister
|
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:51 am |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm Posts: 7702 Songs: 1 Location: Hollyweird, Ca. Been Liked: 1089 times
|
johnreynolds wrote: djdon wrote: With the exception of the GEM series, PEP should be sued by Stingray (or whoever now owns the music that the SC trademark is being associated with) for allowing the use of music PEP doesn't own or control in association with the trademark. Or at the VERY least be forced to dissolve the HELP "license".
"Don't use our music with your trademark." I thought Kurt Slep owns PEP (SC) and his brother Derrick Slep owns Stingray. So he should sue his own brother? Only if he's willing to settle out of court..
|
|
Top |
|
|
djdon
|
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:23 am |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:11 am Posts: 846 Location: Ocean County, Jersey Shore Been Liked: 197 times
|
johnreynolds wrote: djdon wrote: With the exception of the GEM series, PEP should be sued by Stingray (or whoever now owns the music that the SC trademark is being associated with) for allowing the use of music PEP doesn't own or control in association with the trademark. Or at the VERY least be forced to dissolve the HELP "license".
"Don't use our music with your trademark." I thought Kurt Slep owns PEP (SC) and his brother Derrick Slep owns Stingray. So he should sue his own brother? Derek doesn't own Stingray but he's in charge of US music licensing for Stingray. Funny how that nepotism zhit works, huh? https://www.linkedin.com/in/derekslepStill doesn't make what PEP is doing right, though.
_________________ DJ Don
|
|
Top |
|
|
jdmeister
|
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:49 am |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm Posts: 7702 Songs: 1 Location: Hollyweird, Ca. Been Liked: 1089 times
|
djdon wrote: johnreynolds wrote: djdon wrote: With the exception of the GEM series, PEP should be sued by Stingray (or whoever now owns the music that the SC trademark is being associated with) for allowing the use of music PEP doesn't own or control in association with the trademark. Or at the VERY least be forced to dissolve the HELP "license".
"Don't use our music with your trademark." I thought Kurt Slep owns PEP (SC) and his brother Derrick Slep owns Stingray. So he should sue his own brother? Derek doesn't own Stingray but he's in charge of US music licensing for Stingray. Funny how that nepotism zhit works, huh? https://www.linkedin.com/in/derekslepStill doesn't make what PEP is doing right, though. Quote: Pizza Delivery Brindisi's Pizza September 1983 – January 1985 (1 year 5 months)
The last time I ever worked for anyone ... ( or had a job interview...)
|
|
Top |
|
|
SINGA USA
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:18 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:05 am Posts: 241 Been Liked: 197 times
|
Quote: Derek doesn't own Stingray but he's in charge of US music licensing for Stingray. Funny how that nepotism zhit works, huh? Derek was an agent for the Stingray catalog and left that role 1 1/2 years ago to pursue other non-karaoke interests.
|
|
Top |
|
|
djdon
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:56 am |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:11 am Posts: 846 Location: Ocean County, Jersey Shore Been Liked: 197 times
|
So, then yes. Stingray SHOULD sue PEP for complicity in copyright infringement. Without illegally copied music, the HELP "license" is worthless.
_________________ DJ Don
|
|
Top |
|
|
jdmeister
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:42 am |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm Posts: 7702 Songs: 1 Location: Hollyweird, Ca. Been Liked: 1089 times
|
KSFGROUP wrote: Quote: Derek doesn't own Stingray but he's in charge of US music licensing for Stingray. Funny how that nepotism zhit works, huh? Derek was an agent for the Stingray catalog and left that role 1 1/2 years ago to pursue other non-karaoke interests. Perhaps he should update his "Linkedin" profile then.
|
|
Top |
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:49 pm |
|
|
Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am Posts: 4839 Location: In your head rent-free Been Liked: 582 times
|
djdon wrote: So, then yes. Stingray SHOULD sue PEP for complicity in copyright infringement. Without illegally copied music, the HELP "license" is worthless. Right, so let's look at this logically: #1. PEP claims it's only licensing the trademark/quality with the help license. #2. They do NOT "license the music" #3. They require a licensee to indemnify them against the copyright infringement that is committed when a licensee downloads and uses (unauthorized) third party intellectual property. #4. In some areas, they charge $500 a MONTH to "rent their trademark" because they don't own anything else... (their attempt to sue for trade dress alone went exactly nowhere in Illinois) If a KJ uses their logic that "it's cheaper to pay the penalty than it is to pay for permission" then they'd just scrub off the trademark and in one year save $6,000.00 because either way, they are still committing copyright infringement. But there would be no "trade/service mark" displayed... And I would agree with djdon that what they are doing might as well be their own version of vicarious infringement.
|
|
Top |
|
|
djdon
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:53 am |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:11 am Posts: 846 Location: Ocean County, Jersey Shore Been Liked: 197 times
|
c. staley wrote: djdon wrote: So, then yes. Stingray SHOULD sue PEP for complicity in copyright infringement. Without illegally copied music, the HELP "license" is worthless. Right, so let's look at this logically: #1. PEP claims it's only licensing the trademark/quality with the help license. #2. They do NOT "license the music" #3. They require a licensee to indemnify them against the copyright infringement that is committed when a licensee downloads and uses (unauthorized) third party intellectual property. #4. In some areas, they charge $500 a MONTH to "rent their trademark" because they don't own anything else... (their attempt to sue for trade dress alone went exactly nowhere in Illinois) If a KJ uses their logic that "it's cheaper to pay the penalty than it is to pay for permission" then they'd just scrub off the trademark and in one year save $6,000.00 because either way, they are still committing copyright infringement. But there would be no "trade/service mark" displayed... And I would agree with djdon that what they are doing might as well be their own version of vicarious infringement. Anyone care to wager a guess as to whether PEP sought permission to use or associate the music that doesn't belong to them from the actual music owners? OR, maybe PEP is greasing Stingray on the side. Now THAT... would make sense.
_________________ DJ Don
|
|
Top |
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:23 pm |
|
|
Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am Posts: 4839 Location: In your head rent-free Been Liked: 582 times
|
djdon wrote: OR, maybe PEP is greasing Stingray on the side. Now THAT... would make sense. Since the Gem series lawsuit with EMI which Stingray was included in, but settled out early, I doubt that Stingray would give Kurt the time of day
|
|
Top |
|
|
djdon
|
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:02 am |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:11 am Posts: 846 Location: Ocean County, Jersey Shore Been Liked: 197 times
|
c. staley wrote: djdon wrote: OR, maybe PEP is greasing Stingray on the side. Now THAT... would make sense. Since the Gem series lawsuit with EMI which Stingray was included in, but settled out early, I doubt that Stingray would give Kurt the time of day Then, I'd think Stingray would HAVE to know about the HELP 'license'. And if they didn't have some kind of deal with PEP, why would they NOT sue? It's like PEP saying, 'we're not telling you to do anything illegal, but we'll sell you exactly what you need to blow up this building with the understanding that, if you do, we had nothing to do with it.'
_________________ DJ Don
|
|
Top |
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:22 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am Posts: 3885 Images: 0 Been Liked: 397 times
|
djdon wrote: c. staley wrote: djdon wrote: OR, maybe PEP is greasing Stingray on the side. Now THAT... would make sense. Since the Gem series lawsuit with EMI which Stingray was included in, but settled out early, I doubt that Stingray would give Kurt the time of day Then, I'd think Stingray would HAVE to know about the HELP 'license'. And if they didn't have some kind of deal with PEP, why would they NOT sue? It's like PEP saying, 'we're not telling you to do anything illegal, but we'll sell you exactly what you need to blow up this building with the understanding that, if you do, we had nothing to do with it.' There HAS to be some deal between Sleppy/Peppy and Stingray. If not, Harrington wouldn't be looking to rat on KJs who use Stingray songs in their shows. He even said, once, that he would bring suit against anyone caught using Stingray, himself. I do not get how that would work, since he doesn't work for them..................but.
_________________ I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
Top |
|
|
Paradigm Karaoke
|
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:50 am |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm Posts: 5107 Location: Phoenix Az Been Liked: 1279 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: I do not get how that would work, since he doesn't work for them..................but. tin foil hat time.... do we KNOW he doesn't?
_________________ Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens
|
|
Top |
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:09 am |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am Posts: 3885 Images: 0 Been Liked: 397 times
|
Paradigm Karaoke wrote: Smoothedge69 wrote: I do not get how that would work, since he doesn't work for them..................but. tin foil hat time.... do we KNOW he doesn't? HMMMM.
_________________ I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
Top |
|
|
MrBoo
|
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:36 am |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:35 am Posts: 1945 Been Liked: 427 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: Then, I'd think Stingray would HAVE to know about the HELP 'license'. And if they didn't have some kind of deal with PEP, why would they NOT sue?
Why? The deal PEP offers is to look the other way when you display a trademark. That's it. You are liable for all the other rights you are violating and Stingray could easily peruse those that struck the deal with the devil if they so desire. I would imagine, Stingray could even get a list of people who have signed this agreement if they pushed hard enough for it in court. I could just as easily strike a deal with anyone that says they can show my trademark on stingray music if they were stupid enough to agree to it. I wouldn't need Stingray's permission at all.
|
|
Top |
|
|
djdon
|
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:55 am |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:11 am Posts: 846 Location: Ocean County, Jersey Shore Been Liked: 197 times
|
MrBoo wrote: Smoothedge69 wrote: Then, I'd think Stingray would HAVE to know about the HELP 'license'. And if they didn't have some kind of deal with PEP, why would they NOT sue?
Why? The deal PEP offers is to look the other way when you display a trademark. That's it. You are liable for all the other rights you are violating and Stingray could easily peruse those that struck the deal with the devil if they so desire. I would imagine, Stingray could even get a list of people who have signed this agreement if they pushed hard enough for it in court. I could just as easily strike a deal with anyone that says they can show my trademark on stingray music if they were stupid enough to agree to it. I wouldn't need Stingray's permission at all. The issue is, the HELP 'license' is worthless without Stingray's music. Stingray's music (what used to be Sound Choice's music) is now possessed by those that have committed copyright infringement (copied, made copies or received or purchased copied music files without owning the original music source, like the cd). The HELP 'license' ENCOURAGES copyright infringement. Personally, I'd be scared to death to use the HELP 'license'. How stupid can one be?
_________________ DJ Don
|
|
Top |
|
|
mrmarog
|
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:35 am |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:13 pm Posts: 3801 Images: 1 Location: Florida Been Liked: 1612 times
|
djdon wrote: The issue is, the HELP 'license' is worthless without Stingray's music. Stingray's music (what used to be Sound Choice's music) is now possessed by those that have committed copyright infringement (copied, made copies or received or purchased copied music files without owning the original music source, like the cd). The HELP 'license' ENCOURAGES copyright infringement. Personally, I'd be scared to death to use the HELP 'license'. How stupid can one be? Allegedly, PEPCHOICE owns some of the songs and rights to them. How many is a very gray area.
|
|
Top |
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:34 pm |
|
|
Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am Posts: 4839 Location: In your head rent-free Been Liked: 582 times
|
djdon wrote: It's like PEP saying, 'we're not telling you to do anything illegal, but we'll sell you exactly what you need to blow up this building with the understanding that, if you do, we had nothing to do with it.' That's exactly what they're saying because in order to receive any value from their product, you have to be willing to knowingly commit copyright infringement. PEP knows this and that's why their contract specifically states that you can't sue PEP for your infringement of a third party's rights (which they acknowledge they cannot grant you in the first place.)
|
|
Top |
|
|
jdmeister
|
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:13 am |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm Posts: 7702 Songs: 1 Location: Hollyweird, Ca. Been Liked: 1089 times
|
c. staley wrote: djdon wrote: It's like PEP saying, 'we're not telling you to do anything illegal, but we'll sell you exactly what you need to blow up this building with the understanding that, if you do, we had nothing to do with it.' That's exactly what they're saying because in order to receive any value from their product, you have to be willing to knowingly commit copyright infringement. PEP knows this and that's why their contract specifically states that you can't sue PEP for your infringement of a third party's rights (which they acknowledge they cannot grant you in the first place.) Well, it seems like IF a KJ was sued, and he offers up his "Contract" as a defense, would the suit then include PEP/SC? I need to think on that a bit. So, it's true the KJ did promise not to sue, but that document implicates PEP?
|
|
Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 101 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|