Karaoke Forums

Yeah, I'm kinda new at this whole karaoke thing.

^^

Bruce, because in the real world large criminal investigations do not take 30 minutes to an hour. Too much CSI and other police crap on tv.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Thank you for a very informative and interesting post Wall of Sound.

Thank you BigJer. I appreciate your kind words.

WOS,
Thx for putting your computer skills in and creating a much better presentation, than I am capable of doing

Try This:
http://namesecure.com/9/domainSearchRes ... =dkusa.com

By the way, (and only in the interest of fairness) if you think that SC is simply an "innocent victim" in all this stuff, then you need to read the following... this is from 4 years ago.....

AND, to save you some time, simply read the "juicy stuff" which is paragraph 28 through 40...

http://dkusa.com/pdf/SC_Fed_Complaint.pdf

like they say, what goes around, comes around...... .....in the mean time, in between time......aint we got fuuuuuuuuuuu......uuuuun......

Thanks for the info, C! Don't forget #24- Never even REQUESTED licensing...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

And this is my point; there are honest people (like wallofsound -no offense intended) that have been hoodwinked into thinking that this KIAA is operated by an organization of "good, honest, innocent victims of piracy" that are out to make the world a better place... [start the "kum-bai-ya" music].

The KIAA wants KJ's to agree to allow them to "audit" their systems, provide penalties for whatever they want and in the same breath, there are NO similar provisions for manufacturers....


The point of this 4-year-old suit is that the mfg in this case;

1. did not apparently even bother to request licensing

2. had been selling (and profiting off of) these tracks for 3 YEARS
This is particularly interesting because that would place the time frame at the year 2003... and it was the year 2000 when SC and a number of manufacturers were sponsoring "KAPPA" and raiding clubs with federal warrants and their "James Bond" investigator. But it's apparently okay for them to record, package with their trademark, distribute and SELL what is in effect, "stolen, copywitten property".... another description for; (drumroll please) "PIRATING MUSIC."

3. was fully aware of the licensing requirements

4. required/offered licensing education on their website fo the use of "their" products.

Since these tracks/discs were unlicensed to begin with, is it fair that this mfg. should now have any trademark protection on a product that shouldn't have been manufactured or sold at the time anyway?

But never mind all of that.... everyone should simply be concerned that if you have format shifted your material, they will (just like McLeod's) SUE YOU and accuse you of being a pirate until you can prove that you are not....

Of course, one should not live in a glass house....

Are you comparing three songs in Sound Choice's 15,000+ library to someone's entirely pirated collection?

And what if he is? 3 or 15,000
By your statement (question) are you trying to claim that there are different levels of "pirating" and that some are acceptable while others aren't?

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

Very interesting Chip. Do you know if that case has gone to trial yet?

I'm left very torn as I read all this stuff. What's good for the KJ? I'm not sure...

Yes, Sound Choice should have clean hands before engaging in legal actions on copyright enfringement, they do seem rather hypocritical here.

Still does failing to pay the licensing fees on a few songs equate to a license for pirates to steal everything they ever made? Is having hard drives full of songs ripped off from them just exactly the same as them stealing four songs? Depends on how you look at it, I guess.

Principle wise it does seem the same, but do two wrongs make a right? Is it really desirable for us as KJs to have a situation where the company that generally produces the best karaoke discs has to go out of business?

I can remember KJs begging the manufacturers to do something about piracy for years on the old Jolt forum. Now they finally are dong something and the reaction seems rather mixed - some of their tactics do seem heavy handed, so maybe there is some good reason for those who are less than thrilled with the KIAA. I wish it were less one-sided and that they had spent more time talking with KJs and researching the issues from the KJ point of view.

I'm very confused by the whole thing, but I still tend to think the KIAA even with all it's flaws, is still better than nothing.

I'm quite sure that SC would have no issue with demanding FULL payment of the $6000 settlement fee, the same as they do with any pirate, were a KJ found to have even a just a few "illegal" songs in their possession.
Besides, although that particular suit lists just three songs, there ARE many more from years past that SC didn't pay for and were sued over. As stated in the suit itself, this isn't SC's first copyright violation. They aren't strangers to the courtroom when it comes to being named as a defendant in copyright violation suits.
Tit for Tat....

My take on it is that SC has every right to go after pirates and get their rightful compensation for what is due them. However, when they cry foul they way that they have, and when we see lawsuits such as this, it makes it all the harder for anyone to feel sympathy for them and just shows them to be quite hypocritical. They have been guilty of copyright violation themselves and now are playing a complete victim and demanding sympathy when it happens against them.
The whole people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones thing comes to mind here.
I think if they were a little less viscous in their methods and a lot less like rabid dogs going after their prey, they might garner a little more sympathy and perhaps some forgiveness for their past transgressions would be more forthcoming. But they aren't, and these past suits against them just makes them look all the worse when it comes to suing KJ's, and particularly the ones that haven't been in violation in the first place.

Lot's of Manu's have been sued for the same thing as SC. I really don't know how the manu's can get into such a predicament, but many of them do. It isn't right and when they do produce songs that they do not have the right to produce, they should be sued.

In the same vein, they should also sue when they have been wronged.

I wonder how many of us can say that we have never put something on our computer that did not belong to us? The difference is, we didn't get caught. So, go ahead, "cast the first stone."

_________________
Kevin

What I'm saying is that it's a pretty strong statement to group a reputable manufacturer which MAY have had 3/15000 th of their library unlicensed with a pirate KJ who shows a complete disregard for the rules.

Many more? Not strangers to the courtroom? Are you kidding? We're talking about 8125 and 8127, I presume? These were disks manufactured during the infancy stages of Sound Choice. I'm sure you're familiar with the Don Henley/ABKCO business by now. How the copyright rules applied to the karaoke industry were vague at best during that period. I'd love to see how many instances of willfull copyright violation Sound Choice has been guilty of throughout the years. My guess is that they are more "by the book" then many of the brands are in terms of acquiring appropriate permissions.

Reputable by whose standards?
I'm willing to bet if you ask Andrew Scott Music and Helena Music, among others, that they will beg to differ with you on that.
Oh, and since you obviously didn't check the lawsuit, Sound Choice also showed "a complete disregard for the rules".
Just check paragraph 24 of the aforementioned lawsuit. Here it is again in case you don't want to bother looking for yourself:



Check that again:
Defendants neither sought nor obtained from Plaintiffs the licenses necessary to create and distribute the Infringing Products , yet they clearly knew the rules and continued to break them for at least 3 years, not paying any royalties and pocketing the profits!
Now please do explain just how that is different than a KJ pirate or one distributing loaded hard drives.
Is it because they are a supposedly "legit" business and not some guy in his garage whipping off copies? If that's the case, you seriously need to pull your head out of your butt and get real.