Karaoke Forums

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copy ... al/summary


It would seem that Sony is suing KTS as well, I'm not sure if they are going to sue SC as well. It has been pointed out to me that this is for copyright infringement and not trademark infringement. We are splitting legal hairs here, the underlying premiss is the same use of material to make a product or provide a service, and not paying the intellectual holders of the rights. After all it is still stealing right? So much for the morale high ground.

We just emailed sound choice right now after seeing this. We would like to know what this suit is about. We do not deal with many karaoke disc brands because we do not trust them. However, we still dealt with Soundchoice.

_________________
MADPROAUDIO ~ DISABLED VETERAN ~ FAMILY OWNED COMPANY

Mad, You should be aware that over the years SC has been sued over licensing issues on several occasions, and has had to pay settlements because of it.

To my knowledge, the only brands that have not had licensing issues in the U.S. are Pocket Songs and Sybersound (Party Tyme), and I'm not even completely certain about that- I simply have yet to have seen any suits against them for it.

Sometimes one simply has to work with what is available and limit personal liability to the best of their ability.

The fact is, virually every karaoke host that has a library of any size or brand diversification is carrying at least some tracks that are unlicensed by the publishers/owners. We hosts exist only by their unwillingness to go after us individually- so far.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Actually, you don't know the outcomes of those suits, so once again you're speaking out of school.

I'm not going to comment publicly on this litigation except to say this: SC believes it has all of the proper licensing in place for the EMI tracks in its active catalog. The lawsuit is devoid of a lot of the details that would allow us to evaluate EMI's position.

Sort of like when you sue hosts and venues and don't go into a lot of detail, right James? I thought before a trial both sides had to be informed of the evidence supporting the case, so they have a chance to refute it. A little item called disclosure.

They do within the court system but it doesn't mean it must go public. As you know many cases end with a no disclosure clause. And before you go it's a SC favourite tactic, governments, insurance companies and many others do it all the time.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

could it be privilaged information?

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

I have no idea. Theoretically, yes.

The only reason I am stopping short of throwing my hands up and not having soundchoice is because I spoke with someone in the industry that informed me that another lawsuit that was against PHM this past year was actually for one disc back in 2007 yet the lawsuit gave the impression that they were peddling unlicensed material. So maybe this is what is happening to soundchoice. I am going to ask different sources in the next couple days to see what I can find out.

_________________
MADPROAUDIO ~ DISABLED VETERAN ~ FAMILY OWNED COMPANY

We actually go into a lot of detail when we sue hosts and venues. In fact, in the complaint, we include a complete description of the conduct we find to be an infringement along with the legal basis for our conclusion. We do not list specific songs played because that's irrelevant to the cause of action, but our complaints are generally more more detailed than average.

SC has been an EMI licensee for a long time. The complaint says that unlicensed songs were sold and distributed. We'll have to wait to get more information to see exactly why EMI thinks the existing licenses don't apply.

SC has been an EMI licensee for a long time. The complaint says that unlicensed songs were sold and distributed. We'll have to wait to get more information to see exactly why EMI thinks the existing licenses don't apply.[/quote]

We truly hope that the Bricks/Foundations, etc. that we deal with are not under attack. We care deeply about NOT participating in anything we feel is not authorized. I for one believe you when you say that SC licenses the music. I am more concerned about whether or not the attack has anything to do with any packs we currently deal with.

MADPROAUDIO ~ DISABLED VETERAN ~ FAMILY OWNED COMPANY

Confusion is created when the many important details are omitted. Chances are our personal worries are nothing to be concerned about. We take great pride in making sure we do right by this industry no matter how much it hurts our business. No different than these kj's on here with great pride in seeking out authorized material instead of joining the countless people who are destroying this market. Just today a consumer told us that a vendor offered him 3 fully loaded laptops with over 18,000 karaoke songs, and dj music too. All for $1,200.00 per laptop. It is these types of stories we hear that are crippling this market. Remember: To those that play by the rules. Even when your business is destroyed by it, your integrity will remain in tact.

_________________
MADPROAUDIO ~ DISABLED VETERAN ~ FAMILY OWNED COMPANY

I had the pleasure of speaking with Kurt face-to-face today about this very matter. Kurt is in Vegas at the MobileBeat Conference and I hit him up on this topic. Because I didn't ask for permission to post or conversation, I will hold it in confidence. However, after ready the complaint, speaking to Kurt, and doing a little common sense research, I don't believe this issue will be damaging to SC or the Slep brothers.

I should also remind everyone that I am NOT an IP lawyer....and.......with the exception of Mr. Harrington...........neither are you.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

What a surprisse that one of the cheerleaders would stick up for the Sleps. I believe that this will lead to a slippery Slep, I mean slope

Oh, oh, time to generate some infringement settlement $$. What better way to do it than more court filings. Recent: (please don’t shoot the messenger, just passing info I come across the net).

Oregon Jan 11, 2013: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trad ... -/summary/

Arizona Dec 12, 2012: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trad ... l/summary/

Arizona Dec 18, 2012: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/othe ... c/summary/

Oregon Aug 31, 2012: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trad ... l/summary/

Nevada Dec 18, 2012: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/empl ... c/summary/

Virgin Islands Dec 18, 2012: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/othe ... c/summary/

_________________
To be fortunate enough to derive an income from a source as fulfilling as karaoke music has got to be as close to heaven as we can get here on earth!

That's right James the list of songs is irrelevant, just showing your logo is enough, since that is what you are suing for. That means some patron could come off the street hand me a disc to play, I play it your logo pops up on the screen, and then the fun begins, right? Some investigation the host is using a PC, your logo comes on and he's cooked. Then you wonder why hosts and venues are boycotting your product, give me a break. If that is all there is to the process why didn't APS supply the files necessary to complete all the suits in the California case? Your side couldn't even manage this little piece of information could they? Then you want everyone to trust your legal process. This entire process of yours is nothing more or less than what judge Wright said it is," shakedown suits".

Jim, if you would please re-read my post, you would see that I never mentioned any current tracks. I am the first to admit that at this time I do not have full and definite knowledge in regard to SC's CURRENT licensing.

SC HAS been sued in the past, and they HAVE had to pay settlements because of it- all on record- so I DO know the outcome of those past suits. With his posting of of the RFC links above, Apparently so does Brian A. Why would you even say that? No "in my opinion", "I Believe", but simply stating the fact. If you note the rest of my post, this was not even a knock specifically directed at SC.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

We personally spoke with SC yesterday (technically yesterday, it's 4:23am here). And they assured me that all the disc packs we deal with from them are ALL licensed. When a big distributor was sued for PopHitsMonthly, I spoke to a cool guy that worked for the company that was being sued over PHM and he simply told me that they were after some disc back in 2007. That as far as they knew, PHM was licensed on their stuff other than some obscure finding that the sharks are all circling around.

I too contacted PHM and they assured me that everything we get from them is licensed. If this market got anymore confusing, I would have to say that we should all do each other a favor and shoot each other dead (figure of speech, nothing more).

MADPROAUDIO ~ DISABLED VETERAN ~ FAMILY OWNED

In life, there are many rules humans are subject too. The only rules we live by is doing right by your fellow man. Try to sift through all the information and make a decision based upon what you find. In order to remain sane, do not attempt to make total sense of this market for it will bind us in a straight jacket. We care deeply about how others actions effect those around them. We will always remain as loyal as one can possibly be to simply doing right by others the best we can.

_________________
MADPROAUDIO ~ DISABLED VETERAN ~ FAMILY OWNED COMPANY

Sorry to disappoint all of you who jumped in glee when you read the lawsuit filing. After reviewing their list of 160 songs and a thorough review of our actual licenses and PAID royalties, we had licenses and/or are currently paying on 148 of the 160 songs. (Many of the discs which contained the songs were discontinued over 7 years ago). The 12 songs unaccounted for are all on one disc and we have 5 EMI licenses for the other songs ON THAT SAME DISC (all of the songs on that disc are by the same writers) that we are paying for. The other songs are shown in our computer files as "pending", so I suspect that we have licenses that were issued but the computer files were not updated so the actual songs were not paid. We have records of licenses and paid royalties on more than 1000 EMI songs over the years; the most recent quarterly royalty included payments to EMI on over 700 songs! As I initially suspected, once I saw who was behind the lawsuit (Paul Stacey), the suit is completely without merit; we are preparing an appropriate response.

Also, the new GEM Series products will be including EMI songs from our NEW Digital License with them.

I challenge you sanctimonius pirates and your supporters to offer the same proof of legitimacy for the songs in YOUR libraries!!

Good reply Soundchoice. You were very straight forward even when we expressed our concerns to you. I think some people in the past couple years have simply disliked your approach, not the fact that you must fight back against piracy. We are not cheerleaders nor condemn the actions you set in motion to protect your trademark. No matter your motives behind the lawsuits. We feel that if it ultimately raises awareness to help kj's / dj's start to understand what the real prices are to obtain music and stop these sellers from providing pirated product, the entire kj world that cares will benefit in one way or another.

We just wrote a guide the other night regarding yet another consumer that called us and during his attempts to compare pricing, revealed a sellers attempt to offer him an unbelievable deal to that consumer.

It would help even more if anyone that reads the guide clicks on the button that says it was helpful and go to our FACEBOOK page MADPROAUDIO and add us as a friend to show your support in educating others on the things to ask before you purchase from sellers.
We have found that the majority of members in here seem to have a higher level of thought on the subject matter than others do.

http://reviews.ebay.com/dj-computer-kar ... 0176919466

MADPROAUDIO ~ EX MILITARY DISABLED ~ FAMILY OWNED COMPANY

_________________
MADPROAUDIO ~ DISABLED VETERAN ~ FAMILY OWNED COMPANY

Care to name some of the people on this forum toward which this statement is directed? Or are you simply posting unproven malicious accusations?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."