|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
Smoothedge69
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:22 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: I hope the giants keep sleeping, because it's them- not the karaoke mfrs. ( well, except for SC for reasons of their own) that will cause a problem. Any karaoke mfr. who wants to keep their customer base isn't going to go after a KJ using their product. Of course, SC no longer worries about this. Which is why SC will have a smaller and smaller customer base over time. They are going to sue themselves right out of business.
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
earthling12357
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:36 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:21 pm
Posts: 1609
Location: Earth
Been Liked: 307 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: earthling12357 wrote: Lucasfilms or Disney actually do own the copyright to the content on the DVD (karaoke manufacturers do not own the copyright to the content on their product).
The portion in parentheses is in fact not true. It is partially, and maybe mostly, true with regard to SC because of the sale of the pre-2007 catalog to Stingray, but everything that SC made after that sale still belongs to SC, and there most certainly is an enforceable copyright in those works. You are correct. Outside the context of the conversation, that part in the parenthesis is not always true. I was a little lazy in not writing a book to make it perfectly clear. I should have said; "(karaoke track maunufacturers do not typically own the copyright to the original work unless it is the rarest of instances in which the karaoke track manufacturer purchased those rights wholly from the writers, publishers, and any other interest holders, the rights they are most likely to own are limited to the rights of their own reproduction based entirely upon the licensing agreements made with the original interest holders and they may or may not include taking legal action against someone using that work for it's intended purpose, - in contrast, Lucasfilms and Disney have much stronger rights than a typical karaoke track manufacturer)"
_________________
KNOW THYSELF
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:54 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
earthling12357 wrote: You fail to recognize the difference.
Lucasfilms or Disney actually do own the copyright to the content on the DVD (karaoke manufacturers do not own the copyright to the content on their product). If the perfomance rights were purchased for playing the film there wouldn't be a problem with the copyright owner. As for the copy, they won't be worried about that until it is sold or distributed, and then they would go after the actual persons who sold or distributed it. They do own the copyright to their rendition of it only (they have many of their discs copyrighted through Library Of Congress), but the cannot lay claim to the original song. Which is why (I believe it was explained sometime ago) they couldn't go after people for actual copyright infringement and moved to trademark infringement which is more enforceable. _________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:57 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: This is the second mention of Stingray that I have seen. What is it? Is it something that could help newbies?? Stingray is who SC sold their catalog to a few years back. Relabled under The Karaoke Channel & used for private use only. No help to kj's. _________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:59 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: JoeChartreuse wrote: I hope the giants keep sleeping, because it's them- not the karaoke mfrs. ( well, except for SC for reasons of their own) that will cause a problem. Any karaoke mfr. who wants to keep their customer base isn't going to go after a KJ using their product. Of course, SC no longer worries about this. Which is why SC will have a smaller and smaller customer base over time. They are going to sue themselves right out of business. They are only targetting those who have not paid for their tracks. Those that have been named and proven their discs have been dropped from any resulting lawsuits. They aren't purposely suing those that own their discs. _________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
earthling12357
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:23 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:21 pm
Posts: 1609
Location: Earth
Been Liked: 307 times
|
Lonman wrote: earthling12357 wrote: You fail to recognize the difference.
Lucasfilms or Disney actually do own the copyright to the content on the DVD (karaoke manufacturers do not own the copyright to the content on their product). If the perfomance rights were purchased for playing the film there wouldn't be a problem with the copyright owner. As for the copy, they won't be worried about that until it is sold or distributed, and then they would go after the actual persons who sold or distributed it. They do own the copyright to their rendition of it only (they have many of their discs copyrighted through Library Of Congress), but the cannot lay claim to the original song. Which is why (I believe it was explained sometime ago) they couldn't go after people for actual copyright infringement and moved to trademark infringement which is more enforceable. You are correct as I explained in the post above yours. My inadvertant omission of complete detailed clairity in my response to Timberlea's question does not however invalidate the actual answer to that question.
_________________
KNOW THYSELF
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:21 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: All I said is that going after the pirates isn't helping. More are popping up every day. Instead of fighting THEM, make it easier and more convenient to be legal. Modernize the system so people who want to be legal can, without jumping through all kinds of hoops. Geography matters. In the Seattle area, some big time pirates are getting out of the business because of the lawsuits that have been filed. I picked up my most recent gig because of the lawsuits and because someone wanted a certified legal host. There were other factors too, but if the host had not ever been sued, I would not be there now. -Chris
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:20 pm |
|
 |
| Extreme Poster |
 |
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
chrisavis wrote: Smoothedge69 wrote: All I said is that going after the pirates isn't helping. More are popping up every day. Instead of fighting THEM, make it easier and more convenient to be legal. Modernize the system so people who want to be legal can, without jumping through all kinds of hoops. Geography matters. In the Seattle area, some big time pirates are getting out of the business because of the lawsuits that have been filed. I picked up my most recent gig because of the lawsuits and because someone wanted a certified legal host. There were other factors too, but if the host had not ever been sued, I would not be there now. -Chris And what will you do in the event the host that was sued is voluntarily dismissed and it was a "mistake? " Will you give the job back or just figure that it's too bad for him?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:38 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
|
Given that is a very rare circumstance, I don't believe I need to be concerned with that outcome. If that turns out to be the case, I will address the issue at that time. Until then, I will enjoy the fruits of my labor and continue to capitalize on the stupidity of those that don't do their due diligence.
-Chris
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
PyleDriver
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:07 pm |
|
|
| Advanced Poster |
 |
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:35 am
Posts: 361
Location: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Been Liked: 8 times
|
|
Joe, Chartbuster bought the rights to SGB. I guess I have more than a verbal with them, I have a certificate, signed...
Jon
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
birdofsong
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:17 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:25 am
Posts: 965
Been Liked: 118 times
|
chrisavis wrote: Given that is a very rare circumstance, I don't believe I need to be concerned with that outcome. If that turns out to be the case, I will address the issue at that time. Until then, I will enjoy the fruits of my labor and continue to capitalize on the stupidity of those that don't do their due diligence.
-Chris Right. No reason to worry if it isn't YOU it's happening to.
_________________
Birdofsong
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:01 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
chrisavis wrote: Given that is a very rare circumstance, I don't believe I need to be concerned with that outcome. If that turns out to be the case, I will address the issue at that time. Until then, I will enjoy the fruits of my labor and continue to capitalize on the stupidity of those that don't do their due diligence.
-Chris Chris, There's really no need to pussyfoot around an answer. All I was asking is how you would "address the issue" if it were to occur in your situation. IF it were me, I'd immediately put said "legal host" right back in their job since it would have been wrong for others to pre-judge that person as some illegal type when in fact they were not. I see that you'd apparently have more of a problem in deciding what would be the right thing to do. It simply appears that I'd not need to put off even thinking about what the right thing to do would be, I can address it now.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:05 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
PyleDriver wrote: Joe, Chartbuster bought the rights to SGB. I guess I have more than a verbal with them, I have a certificate, signed...
Jon Just a correction for you Jon: Chartbuster has claimed they purchased the catalog.... and registered the copyrights.... but when asked for proof of those registerations (since they could not be located at the copyright office) Chartbuster has refused to back up their claim at all. Just because they "said they did" doesn't mean they really did....
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:26 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm
Posts: 4433
Location: New York City
Been Liked: 757 times
|
chrisavis wrote: I picked up my most recent gig because of the lawsuits and because someone wanted a certified legal host. There were other factors too, but if the host had not ever been sued, I would not be there now.
-Chris c. staley wrote: And what will you do in the event the host that was sued is voluntarily dismissed and it was a "mistake? "
Will you give the job back or just figure that it's too bad for him? Chip, I'm glad you asked this question. I hinted around this question when Chris first posted about getting a gig because he was listed in SC's site as a Certified KJ. I asked if Chris knew if the guy that was fired (because he was being sued by SC) was indeed a pirate.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:26 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
c. staley wrote: chrisavis wrote: Given that is a very rare circumstance, I don't believe I need to be concerned with that outcome. If that turns out to be the case, I will address the issue at that time. Until then, I will enjoy the fruits of my labor and continue to capitalize on the stupidity of those that don't do their due diligence.
-Chris Chris, There's really no need to pussyfoot around an answer. All I was asking is how you would "address the issue" if it were to occur in your situation. IF it were me, I'd immediately put said "legal host" right back in their job since it would have been wrong for others to pre-judge that person as some illegal type when in fact they were not. I see that you'd apparently have more of a problem in deciding what would be the right thing to do. It simply appears that I'd not need to put off even thinking about what the right thing to do would be, I can address it now. Not taking the bait, Chip. There is nothing to answer. I am not going to concern myself with something that has a probablity of occuring that is basically nil. -Chris
_________________
-Chris
Last edited by chrisavis on Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
PyleDriver
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:40 am |
|
|
| Advanced Poster |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:35 am
Posts: 361
Location: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Been Liked: 8 times
|
|
Chip, Chip, Chip...Why are you so pugnacious? The word really does fit you...
Synonyms: aggressive, antagonistic, argumentative, bellicose, brawling, cantankerous, chip on shoulder, choleric, combative, contentious, defiant, disputatious, have a bone to pick, hot-tempered, irascible, irritable, itching to fight, militant, petulant, pushing, pushy*, quarrelsome, ready to fight, rebellious, salty, scrappy, self-assertive, truculent, warlike
Jon
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:38 am |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
chrisavis wrote: Not taking the bait, Chip. There is nothing to answer. I am not going to concern myself with something that has a probablity of occuring that is basically nil.
-Chris It's a fair question regarding a hypothetical (but entirely possible) situation and not bait at all. Have you ever dreamed what you would do if you won the lottery? Most people have... and that's also a situation that has a (mathematical) probability of occurring that is also basically nil.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:42 am |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
PyleDriver wrote: Chip, Chip, Chip...Why are you so pugnacious? The word really does fit you...
Synonyms: aggressive, antagonistic, argumentative, bellicose, brawling, cantankerous, chip on shoulder, choleric, combative, contentious, defiant, disputatious, have a bone to pick, hot-tempered, irascible, irritable, itching to fight, militant, petulant, pushing, pushy*, quarrelsome, ready to fight, rebellious, salty, scrappy, self-assertive, truculent, warlike
Jon Feel better now that you've gotten all that out?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
PyleDriver
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:24 am |
|
|
| Advanced Poster |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:35 am
Posts: 361
Location: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Been Liked: 8 times
|
|
The old answer a question with a question Chip. Do I feel better I got that out? My statement had nothing to do with my feelings, rather my observations... Example being, why are you prodding Chis for an answer to a hypothetical situation you present to him, merely because you present it?... My answer to your question is, the product has a warning on its label. I never read it before two weeks ago when a guy gave me two CD's. Now I know, and it changes how I view this whole public performance issue. So if those KJ's are out in public using their product, making money, without their permission, oh well they ignored the warning... Many on this forum have choose to get their permission, myself included. Now If we profit from doing so, more power to us...
Jon
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 159 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
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
