Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums https://mail.karaokescenemagazine.net/forums/ |
|
Tightening The Noose? https://mail.karaokescenemagazine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28280 |
Page 1 of 8 |
Author: | The Lone Ranger [ Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Tightening The Noose? |
![]() |
Author: | doowhatchulike [ Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:27 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
One thing that is just not being made clear in all this is the level of AMBIGUITY in terms of product use here. It is possible that this ambiguity was used by manufacturers in their marketing schemes. However, these same entities seem to be trying to decrease this, of course with their own profits in mind. Some of this can be done in ways that forego and usually violate consumer rights. It is obvious that this situation is in some serious need of third party definition in order to set the parameters going forward. What will it take to get there is yet to be seen. I do not see it occurring in the current litigation models; it might be that those involved may not even want that definition to occur. However, once this ball goes rolling, I am of the opinion that more specific definition will be one of the outcomes... |
Author: | JoeChartreuse [ Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:53 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
The Lone Ranger wrote: ...... Now the legal hosts are having to suffer along with the illegal. Sort of what my high school gym coach used to say "one hang you all hang", at least that way you will get the guilty. . As far as SC goes, it is not "now" but always, since the beginning. Hence, my "cringing at the methods". . |
Author: | The Lone Ranger [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:58 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
JoeChartreuse wrote: The Lone Ranger wrote: ...... Now the legal hosts are having to suffer along with the illegal. Sort of what my high school gym coach used to say "one hang you all hang", at least that way you will get the guilty. . As far as SC goes, it is not "now" but always, since the beginning. Hence, my "cringing at the methods". . ![]() |
Author: | Bazza [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:50 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
The Lone Ranger wrote: Why should everyone have the threat of being sued by them, for merely operating their business? BUT...."Everyone" is not under "the threat of being sued", unless they are stealing music of course. Direct question "The Lone Ranger": Have you been threatened with a lawsuit? |
Author: | The Lone Ranger [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:21 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
Bazza wrote: The Lone Ranger wrote: Why should everyone have the threat of being sued by them, for merely operating their business? BUT...."Everyone" is not under "the threat of being sued", unless they are stealing music of course. Direct question "The Lone Ranger": Have you been threatened with a lawsuit? ![]() P.S. Oh by the way Bazza yes everyone is being sued in these mass filed fishing expeditions. A big drag net is laid out and dolphins get caught with the tuna. Even if you are legal you are tied up in court, and you are forced to hire a lawyer to defend yourself against baseless charges. It is hoped that by conducting the legal process in this manner hosts will simply cave in and buy whatever insurance policy the particular man is peddling that day. |
Author: | Bazza [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:36 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
The Lone Ranger wrote: Bazza wrote: The Lone Ranger wrote: Why should everyone have the threat of being sued by them, for merely operating their business? BUT...."Everyone" is not under "the threat of being sued", unless they are stealing music of course. Direct question "The Lone Ranger": Have you been threatened with a lawsuit? The Lone Ranger wrote: ![]() Neither have I or 99% of the people on thus forum. Seems your statement that everyone is under "the threat of being sued" is false then hmm? The Lone Ranger wrote: I just had my 68th birthday Monday. Happy Birthday! ![]() |
Author: | The Lone Ranger [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:41 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
Bazza wrote: The Lone Ranger wrote: Bazza wrote: The Lone Ranger wrote: Why should everyone have the threat of being sued by them, for merely operating their business? BUT...."Everyone" is not under "the threat of being sued", unless they are stealing music of course. Direct question "The Lone Ranger": Have you been threatened with a lawsuit? The Lone Ranger wrote: ![]() Neither have I. Seems your statement that everyone is under "the threat of being sued" is false then hmm? The Lone Ranger wrote: I just had my 68th birthday Monday. Happy Birthday! ![]() Thanks Bazza, and yes everyone is under the gun, even Athena was investigated turned in by a jealous legal rival, that is why she is so careful that all the t's are crossed and the i's dotted today. It only takes being named in one of these suits to rock you hosting world. Even if there is no case you are tied up in court and forced to pay thousands of dollars to clear yourself. Welcome to the wonderful world of hosting. P.S. If 99% of the hosts have never been sued it makes you wonder just how effective this whole legal process is. Rumbolt stated that the hosts and venues named in the Tennessee Tri County suit are still doing business as normal, so what again is the purpose of the legal process. Oh that's right suits drive sales, I forgot. |
Author: | chrisavis [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:14 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
I do believe the legal process works in some areas. Particularly areas where there is a more dispersed population. But in a major metropolitan areas where there are millions of people and many hundreds of unique KJ's, the legal process just doesn't scale. There has been no active legal activity in the Seattle area in about 2 years now. It is no longer a topic of conversation. When I mention it (which is rarely now) most people don't know anything ever happened and don't believe anything significant will ever happen. More importantly, the few KJ's I have openly confronted have laughed it off. I totally understand why too. They were never named in the first couple of rounds here and chances are, because there are so many pirates in the area, they will never get sued. There are just too many and odds are, any one host will never get busted. I recently contacted a 1/2 dozen legal KJ's to try to organize a meetup to discuss how we could combat piracy. None of them wanted anything to do with it. Two of the hosts were hostile about it saying they felt it would damage their own operations to publicly go after pirates. The other 4 were less adamant but still felt there would be nothing to gain by openly pursuing pirate hosts in our area. I great way to look at it is like this - One pirate I confronted several months ago, told me he has been downloading from iRC for 10 years now. He told me outright he has never paid for a single track. He has 500,000+ tracks (he collects foreign language tracks). He told me that if Sound Choice were to sue him he would settle, pay for the GEM, and be out a few thousand dollars. Not a bad deal for 10 years of karaoke. He said he would continue to pirate because no other company was suing so why stop. I have to admit, when I looked at it that way, it made me wonder how much money I could have saved in the last 3 years and why I have spent so much to stay legal when there is actually very little risk of ever being sued. Athena likes to bring up the "acceptable" risk argument. I have mitigated my risk with Sound Choice, Chartbuster/DTE, and Stellar. I now have my GEM, my Chartbuster drives, and a Stellar CAP. Since none of the other companies are suing or even seem to care, why should I buy any more music at all? I have eliminated all risk that exists at this point. -Chris Edit: PS......please don't read into this that I am considering piracy. I am not. I am just venting and noting the reality of karaoke in my area. I am still very actively buying karaoke discs. I am watching over 100 eBay auctions on any given day. Attachment:
|
Author: | The Lone Ranger [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:41 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
![]() |
Author: | Bazza [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:50 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
The Lone Ranger wrote: P.S. If 99% of the hosts have never been sued it makes you wonder just how effective this whole legal process is. Selective, out of context quoting. Don't play dirty. I said "99% of the people on this forum...." The Lone Ranger wrote: Rumbolt stated that the hosts and venues named in the Tennessee Tri County suit are still doing business as normal, so what again is the purpose of the legal process. This is like saying police in general are not needed because some criminals go back to crime after being caught. Flawed logic. ![]() |
Author: | The Lone Ranger [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:56 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
![]() |
Author: | Bazza [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:21 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
The Lone Ranger wrote: Still pretty pathetic numbers for four years work. Millions of people break the law speeding or running stop lights...you see them everyday. A tiny percentage are caught nationwide. Should they just stop trying? Let everyone break the law? What exactly constitutes a good number in your eyes? The Lone Ranger wrote: You really can't use a police analogy Bazza because the police deal with criminal activity Sure I can. That's why they call it an "analogy". But I will acquiesce if that makes you happy. Should ASCAP and BMI stop going to bars and venues that pay no royalties and cease threatening them to join? After all there are thousands of "public performances" that take place every day and pay no performance rights whatsoever. I am sure the percentage of people they catch isn't very high. How about movie companies? There are torrents available for every movie that exists the minute they hit DVD. Should they just give up? Stop trying to catch the criminals that give away their product for free? They catch one in a million....literally. Should Nike, Apple, Prada & Rolex stop going after the people making knockoffs of their products? By your logic nobody is getting hurt...hey it isn't a REAL Rolex. So we should just let these thieves make copies of everything, right? ![]() |
Author: | timberlea [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
Bazza, the minute a movie hits DVD? Try when the movie comes out in a theatre and in some cases before it's released. |
Author: | Paradigm Karaoke [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:22 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
Bazza wrote: The Lone Ranger wrote: Still pretty pathetic numbers for four years work. Millions of people break the law speeding or running stop lights...you see them everyday. A tiny percentage are caught nationwide. Should they just stop trying? Let everyone break the law? What exactly constitutes a good number in your eyes? your right, but look at it in the context of how the Manus are doing it. now the police will pull YOU over because you are driving a car and MAY have been speeding SOMETIME in the ast so they take you to impound and dump your cars ECM to check if you went over the limit. if you did, pay a big fine, if you did not, just pay the impound fees and go on about your life. |
Author: | JimHarrington [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
Paradigm Karaoke wrote: your right, but look at it in the context of how the Manus are doing it. now the police will pull YOU over because you are driving a car and MAY have been speeding SOMETIME in the ast so they take you to impound and dump your cars ECM to check if you went over the limit. if you did, pay a big fine, if you did not, just pay the impound fees and go on about your life. Um, no. The "police" are beset with a rash of stolen cars. They can't tell which cars are stolen without checking the registration. They know a lot of the cars that are speeding are stolen, and that's something they can see. So they pull you over because you were seen speeding. The "police" don't care as much about the speeding as they do about making sure your car wasn't stolen. They ask to see your license and registration, and if the registration you produce matches your car, you pay your speeding ticket (which might be waived) and move along. |
Author: | timberlea [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
So how many police officers out there in relation to the population, not to mention they have officers in every state and territory? Compare that to two companies going against how many? They can't do it all but they will get what they can. Something is better than nothing. |
Author: | Cueball [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
Bazza wrote: Should Nike, Apple, Prada & Rolex stop going after the people making knockoffs of their products? By your logic nobody is getting hurt...hey it isn't a REAL Rolex. So we should just let these thieves make copies of everything, right? ![]() You mean my RoNex isn't real?????????????? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Author: | timberlea [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
So that's why my $20 Rolux I got in Times Square broke on me. |
Author: | JoeChartreuse [ Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:57 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Tightening The Noose? |
Bazza wrote: .....BUT...."Everyone" is not under "the threat of being sued", unless they are stealing music of course. YES-THEY ARE! Original manufacturer Disc based hosts have been sued, PC hosts with all of the discs have been sued- you are wrong. The above have been sued, without investigation, several times- as have hosts that haven't worked in named venues. Yup, EVERYONE can ( and has) been sued- whether they have stolen music or not, because SC sues for media shift, not piracy. I guess I can tell a story here, now that it's a done deal. SC did a mass suit here in NJ- which crapped out after they allegedly screwed those who were handling it. One of those named ( friends).....reported themselves! That's right, a disc based host reported themselves to SC to see what would happen, and in hopes of their own gain.. You guessed it- They got sued ( no PC on the entire premises- EVER), and couldn't wait to counter-sue. SC saved their butts by getting into a problem with those they were supposed to oversee but allegedly never did. So, to re-iterate: Stealing music has nothing to do with whether one gets sued- only the internet advertising and chance control how SC ( and maybe PR) will throw stuff against the wall in hopes of stickage.... |
Page 1 of 8 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |