|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
c. staley
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:50 pm |
|
 |
| Extreme Poster |
 |
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: Oh, good Lord, Bazza, you're going to throw Chip's imagination into overdrive. Here is the quality control provision from the GEM series license agreement: Quote: You agree that you will not modify the manner in which the Marks are electronically displayed as part of your live karaoke entertainment services; that you will not apply the Marks to any track to which it has not already been applied or to the listing of any track that did not originate with US; that you will not disparage, mutilate, or otherwise modify the Marks in any public place; that you will not use the Marks in any advertising except as part of song listings; that you will not undertake any action that brings the Marks or US into disrepute; and that you will not downsample, compress, or otherwise modify the Content of the Media in such a manner as to reduce the performance quality of that Content. You agree that these provisions constitute appropriate efforts on our part to maintain control over the quality of the karaoke tracks and your services, and that any breach of the provisions of this paragraph in a manner that is detrimental to the quality of any good or service to which the Marks are applied is grounds for termination of this Agreement. That doesn't look like anything to do with "quality control of his SERVICE" ... it looks like nothing more that your requirements of what he will not modify to your already-agreed to intellectual "property." I just don't see any "service" in there anywhere....
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:30 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
c. staley wrote: That doesn't look like anything to do with "quality control of his SERVICE" ... it looks like nothing more that your requirements of what he will not modify to your already-agreed to intellectual "property."
I just don't see any "service" in there anywhere.... ... you will not modify the manner in which the Marks are electronically displayed as part of your live karaoke entertainment services ... you will not use the Marks in any advertising except as part of song listings ... you will not undertake any action that brings the Marks or US into disrepute...you will not downsample, compress, or otherwise modify the Content of the Media in such a manner as to reduce the performance quality of that Content...appropriate efforts on our part to maintain control over the quality of ... your services ... . *sigh*
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:44 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: .. you will not modify the manner in which the Marks are electronically displayed as part of your live karaoke entertainment services ... you will not use the Marks in any advertising except as part of song listings ... you will not undertake any action that brings the Marks or US into disrepute...you will not downsample, compress, or otherwise modify the Content of the Media in such a manner as to reduce the performance quality of that Content...appropriate efforts on our part to maintain control over the quality of ... your services oh, I see.... it's the service he's providing ON BEHALF OF Sound Choice. Because when he's working, he's working for Sound Choice and representing them.... Just like a franchisee... The opposite of "confusion" where Sound Choice is NOW an integral part of his business: Quote: "as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities..." Yeah... that's just "a little too close" for my taste... You wanna sell me something? Fine. You want to "rent" me something? That's okay too... You wanna tell me what/how I use what you're rented me? Nope...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
hiteck
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:54 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:39 am
Posts: 884
Location: Tx
Been Liked: 17 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: Sometimes there are so many posts in a thread it's hard to keep up.
I understand your issues, but we prefer to have uniformity in this area. It is a lot of work keeping up with different versions of documents. It's easy to differentiate, but what happens when we need to make a change? We now have to analyze two separate documents instead of one, determine how to change them, and keep track of that. You and/or your client can't maintain 2 seperate documents that contain some of the same material? Seriously? How about spelling out what exactly it is you and your client are interested in instead of using something as vague as "financial records"? Maybe something more like this: 1) Receipts and/or bill of sales for proof of purchases of SC media; I keep those anyway feel free to look at them. 2) Copies of bill of sale(s) or transaction information relating to SC media that has been sold to another individual, entity or business; To protect myself why wouldn't I do that, feel free to look at them. 3) Copies of forms of payment and/or 1099's in cases where the KJ is hosting multiple events simultaneously using SC media. I'd think you could subpoena that last part from venues regardless if the KJ agreed to it or not. Was there something else that falls into "financial records" you and your client are interested in?
_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:34 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
|
Certain conditions are kept vague on purpose... this allows the lessor (i.e. Sound Choice) to define them in the widest scope and longest range possible when they feel they need to... (like your savings account)
I believe that their reference to financial information/accounting records will extend straight into personal finances.... because proving your income proves that there is something to get.
Nothing new...
Last edited by c. staley on Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lone Wolf
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:38 pm |
|
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 10:11 am
Posts: 1832
Location: TX
Been Liked: 59 times
|
|
Unless of course you karoke is a LLC in which case they can't.
_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:53 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
Lone Wolf wrote: Unless of course you karoke is a LLC in which case they can't. I think they don't set them up that way.... I would expect that they lease to "people" not "corporations."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
hiteck
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:55 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:39 am
Posts: 884
Location: Tx
Been Liked: 17 times
|
c. staley wrote: Lone Wolf wrote: Unless of course you karoke is a LLC in which case they can't. I think they don't set them up that way.... I would expect that they lease to "people" not "corporations." I wasn't referring to their GEM Series lease agreement I was talking about their CNS.
_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MadMusicOne
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:02 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:41 am
Posts: 652
Images: 0
Been Liked: 48 times
|
c. staley wrote: Lone Wolf wrote: Unless of course you karoke is a LLC in which case they can't. I think they don't set them up that way.... I would expect that they lease to "people" not "corporations." ....Really? Maybe I'm confused but I thought the GEM series was only leased to a KJ/DJ/Entertainment Business for commercial use not private usage (home-user or people). But of course Romney did say that People are Corporations.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:07 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
MadMusicOne wrote: ....Really? Maybe I'm confused but I thought the GEM series was only leased to a KJ/DJ/Entertainment Business for commercial use not private usage (home-user or people). But of course Romney did say that People are Corporations. I believe it's "Professional USERS Only" with no distinction. Check their home page.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:08 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
hiteck wrote: c. staley wrote: Lone Wolf wrote: Unless of course you karoke is a LLC in which case they can't. I think they don't set them up that way.... I would expect that they lease to "people" not "corporations." I wasn't referring to their GEM Series lease agreement I was talking about their CNS. Doesn't much matter.... it all still traces back to the same place.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:54 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
hiteck wrote: You and/or your client can't maintain 2 seperate documents that contain some of the same material? Seriously?
It's not "2 separate documents." We're making a conscious effort to keep our documents uniform so that we don't have to maintain and review dozens of different versions of a document every time we want to make a change. hiteck wrote: How about spelling out what exactly it is you and your client are interested in instead of using something as vague as "financial records"?
Maybe something more like this:
1) Receipts and/or bill of sales for proof of purchases of SC media;
I keep those anyway feel free to look at them.
2) Copies of bill of sale(s) or transaction information relating to SC media that has been sold to another individual, entity or business;
To protect myself why wouldn't I do that, feel free to look at them.
3) Copies of forms of payment and/or 1099's in cases where the KJ is hosting multiple events simultaneously using SC media.
I'd think you could subpoena that last part from venues regardless if the KJ agreed to it or not.
Was there something else that falls into "financial records" you and your client are interested in? Not at all. If you're a voluntary licensee, we wouldn't even ask for those things unless there was some reason to suspect you weren't following the conditions...in which case we would talk to you about it first. Besides, you always have the right to refuse. The consequence is that our promise not to sue you would no longer operative--and in that case, you have to think about how serious the misconduct would have to be for us to consider suing somebody who's been a good partner and customer. We have no interest in seeing your personal financials, and in fact we go out of our way not to uncover those kinds of things when we're looking at hard drives even in the worst case.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:48 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
c. staley wrote: MadMusicOne wrote: ....So what about the KJ's/Pirates that have altered the Graphic portions of their files by taking off the Manufacturer's Trademarks. I found a thread, in some forum, speaking about this happening. Are they going after them? I'm not sure... HarringtonLaw needs to place his opinion on this one.... But I'm also pretty sure it's not going to come down to any other graphic element (like typeface... or "look and feel") since these tracks can be purchased from other sources labeled as the "karaoke channel" as mp3+G files.... with the exact same typeface and sweeps, etc... Then add to that their logos added to tracks without permission. If they were to sue, and the KJ was playing the 8125 disc, the logo would be legally invisible, because it was added to a track produced without permission. Yup, SC paid a settlement, but the track remains an unlicensed production, like hundreds of others. Does anyone think that a judge will rule that it's the KJ's responsibility to determine if the manufacturer's product ws licensed or unlicensed? I think not- and don't believe there is even the weakest of cases because of SC's history of unlicensed production. IMNSHO, of course...
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:02 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
hiteck wrote: Non-certified 1:1 KJ's aren't the same animals as Pirates nor have they harmed the industry and I'd think they deserve better. Bingo. All along SC has claimed that they are trying to "recoup losses" caused by those who have stolen their music. Let's say I made tires for a living, and someone stole a truckload of tires from me. Would I go after those who stole the truck, or should I go after someone who uses the tires that they paid for to hang off of a dock to protect boats from getting scratched because I didn't give them permission to use them that way. Personally, I would go after the thieves. SC, on the other hand, is happy to intimidate money from good PAYING CUSTOMERS because they media shifted. They can't be bothered trying to find the people who stole the music. This way is easier... Ethical, huh? Yet people don't believe that the label is disappearing in my area... Bazza: I just want you to know that I, for one, don't believe that you did any ring kissing. You probably just said "yessir" alot and promised to comply. No need to get sloppy about it.... 
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:09 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: hiteck wrote:
Yet people don't believe that the label is disappearing in my area...
Well, it's the same people that believe that you can't run a good show without SC in your arsenal. I know people who have been doing it for YEARS.
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:35 am |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: c. staley wrote: MadMusicOne wrote: ....So what about the KJ's/Pirates that have altered the Graphic portions of their files by taking off the Manufacturer's Trademarks. I found a thread, in some forum, speaking about this happening. Are they going after them? I'm not sure... HarringtonLaw needs to place his opinion on this one.... But I'm also pretty sure it's not going to come down to any other graphic element (like typeface... or "look and feel") since these tracks can be purchased from other sources labeled as the "karaoke channel" as mp3+G files.... with the exact same typeface and sweeps, etc... Then add to that their logos added to tracks without permission. If they were to sue, and the KJ was playing the 8125 disc, the logo would be legally invisible, because it was added to a track produced without permission. Yup, SC paid a settlement, but the track remains an unlicensed production, like hundreds of others. Does anyone think that a judge will rule that it's the KJ's responsibility to determine if the manufacturer's product ws licensed or unlicensed? I think not- and don't believe there is even the weakest of cases because of SC's history of unlicensed production. IMNSHO, of course... GAWD drop the 8125 already, it's really old, even back in the JOLT days. They still own the logo as Jim has stated, and if it's copied they still have recourse. They had to pull the discs, KJ's that bought it in time (or through other sources today) are fine whether it was done without licensing or not. _________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:37 am |
|
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: hiteck wrote:
Yet people don't believe that the label is disappearing in my area...
Well, it's the same people that believe that you can't run a good show without SC in your arsenal. I know people who have been doing it for YEARS. It's not disappearing here, stronger - if not more so - than ever. We are getting new singers because we carry the brand that others dropped. _________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:50 am |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
Quote: Let's say I made tires for a living, and someone stole a truckload of tires from me. Would I go after those who stole the truck, or should I go after someone who uses the tires that they paid for to hang off of a dock to protect boats from getting scratched because I didn't give them permission to use them that way.
Let's say I BOUGHT four of your tiress, then reproduced them, logos and all, for next to nothing, used them, and replaced them as required with you never seeing another penny from me.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
hiteck
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:53 am |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:39 am
Posts: 884
Location: Tx
Been Liked: 17 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: JoeChartreuse wrote: hiteck wrote:
Yet people don't believe that the label is disappearing in my area...
^ I didn't say that 
_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
hiteck
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:31 am |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:39 am
Posts: 884
Location: Tx
Been Liked: 17 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: It's not "2 separate documents." We're making a conscious effort to keep our documents uniform so that we don't have to maintain and review dozens of different versions of a document every time we want to make a change.
Not 2 separate documents? What would you consider it? If you and your client aren't interested in that then I don't see why provisions couldn't be made for valued customers willing to submit to your audit and pay your fee. HarringtonLaw wrote: hiteck wrote: How about spelling out what exactly it is you and your client are interested in instead of using something as vague as "financial records"?
Maybe something more like this:
1) Receipts and/or bill of sales for proof of purchases of SC media;
I keep those anyway feel free to look at them.
2) Copies of bill of sale(s) or transaction information relating to SC media that has been sold to another individual, entity or business;
To protect myself why wouldn't I do that, feel free to look at them.
3) Copies of forms of payment and/or 1099's in cases where the KJ is hosting multiple events simultaneously using SC media.
I'd think you could subpoena that last part from venues regardless if the KJ agreed to it or not.
Was there something else that falls into "financial records" you and your client are interested in? Not at all. If you're a voluntary licensee, we wouldn't even ask for those things unless there was some reason to suspect you weren't following the conditions...in which case we would talk to you about it first. Besides, you always have the right to refuse. The consequence is that our promise not to sue you would no longer operative--and in that case, you have to think about how serious the misconduct would have to be for us to consider suing somebody who's been a good partner and customer. We have no interest in seeing your personal financials, and in fact we go out of our way not to uncover those kinds of things when we're looking at hard drives even in the worst case. Your response quoted above is why people are leery of SC and aren't so willing to jump on board with SC's request. Actually if I weren't following the conditions then that would be a breach of contract making the CNS invalid giving SC the ability to sue me. Sorry and it's sad, but the days where you can come to a verbal agreement with a man and shake his hand and take him for his his word are long gone. In the CNS itself says page 3 #8 wrote: 8. RIGHT OF REVIEW; NO RELIANCE ON EXTRINSIC STATEMENTS. YOU acknowledge that
YOU have read this entire COVENANT and that YOU have been afforded the opportunity to discuss the
terms and conditions herein with an attorney of YOUR choice. YOU further swear and represent that in
executing this COVENANT YOU are not relying upon any statement, promise or representation of fact by SOUND CHOICE other than what is contained in this COVENANT, and that YOU have the legal capacity to enter into this COVENANT.
So sorry if I don't take your word for it.
_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 239 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
