KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - Harrington I'm Curious Public Forums Karaoke Discussions Karaoke Legalities & Piracy, etc... Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums Home | Contact Us | Site Map  

Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene

   
  * Login
  * Register

  * FAQ
  * Search

Custom Search

Social Networks


premium-member

Offsite Links


It is currently Thu Jan 09, 2025 11:59 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 192 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:02 pm 
Offline
Super Extreme Poster
Super Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
JoeChartreuse wrote:
Lonman wrote:
JoeChartreuse wrote:

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.


I use that one because it's still the best known example.

How about SC8438, 8435, 2029, 2169 and a bunch of others?
There were hundreds of tracks produced that way.

Many tracks produced were either not re-licensed or the publisher pulled the licensing back after the fact - Alanis Morisette, Garth Brooks, Sugarland, etc..

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
Image


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:04 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
earthling12357 wrote:
chrisavis wrote:
This has been explained before. Search the forums.

-Chris


Mine wasn't a rhetorical question.
I was not being a smart <span style=font-size:10px><i>(@$%&#!)</i></span> nor was I being sarcastic.
Your answer on the otherhand, I'm not sure about.
It would be a good way to bring all discusions on this forum to a halt though.


Tone is often lost in translation in message forums. I didn't feel you were being snarky nor was I trying to be. It is true enough that much that gets said here gets said over and over and over though.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:08 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
Lonman wrote:
Many tracks produced were either not re-licensed or the publisher pulled the licensing back after the fact.


Agreed, but I wasn't arguing that fact. Again, my point was:

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 [b]unlicensed production,
AND:

. 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-

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

" Disc based and loving it..."


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:25 pm 
Offline
Super Extreme Poster
Super Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
Doesn't change the fact that they own the trademark to said track. Regardless of whether it was made with licensing or not.
I seriously doubt a judge would question that part. They will look at the people copying illegally in the first place. If worse came to worse, they wouldn't get charged the what is it something like $750 per track or something like that from those discs. But again, I personally don't think a judge would ever do so.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
Image


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:04 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
JoeChartreuse wrote:
Lonman wrote:
Many tracks produced were either not re-licensed or the publisher pulled the licensing back after the fact.


Agreed, but I wasn't arguing that fact. Again, my point was:

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 [b]unlicensed production,
AND:

. 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-


Joe, you've made this claim again and again, and I've pointed to case law that says otherwise, and you won't cite any authority for your position.

I invite you, once again, to cite to some authority for your position, that the logo is "legally invisible" if added to a track produced without permission.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:08 pm 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 7:09 pm
Posts: 839
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Been Liked: 224 times
JoeChartreuse wrote:
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


Joe I'm curious as to your take on this - I usually agree with you but am wondering if you take this position on discs why would the same wording not be applied to legal downloads? I don't check behind any music I buy to see if all the licenses have been paid. I get Prime Cuts monthly and assume that as a legally operating entity, they will have paid the appropriate fees to produce the music. There is no guarantee that anyone you purchase anything from is completely legal across the board. It's usually a good faith purchase.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:33 pm 
Offline
Novice Poster
Novice Poster

Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:35 pm
Posts: 15
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Been Liked: 2 times
Smoothedge69 wrote:
Here is the link to the thread that started this discussion. This gentleman posted his video today and if you look closely, the e-mails he talks about are from this month. He goes into the CNS and the audit agreement, and it would seem that they are both recent documents.
Here's the link:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23467


Those documents were sent to me by Sound Choice on 3-19-2012. If they are not the one's that are in effect or someone there needs to get there stuff organized.

I was sent a response to Mr Harrington which I responded to but have got no response back on. I am more than willing to publish all emails back and forth, but he really does not want that and in telling me that there has been no innuendo and no bullying he again reminded me that he would be happy to sue me in Arizona.... yeah... no bullying at all

In our emails I have attached this document over 5 times and he seems to ignore it.
http://azkaraokealliance.com/karaokedocs/Bill%20Becker%20-%20Sound%20Choice%20Karaoke%20Press%20Release9-08-Highlighted.pdf

It was obtained after I spent my money to fly cross country to meet with Bill Becker, who was identified as the Sound Choice CEO to me at the time (he signed it as General Manager). We negotiated and after about a month and over 40 emails back and forth he gave me this document on Sound Choice Letter-head. It clearly states I can media shift ( and does not separate me form anyone else) as long as I am willing to provide proof I have legal copies of discs. I have been working ever since then to show my discs to sound Choice, but they keep adding on terms and conditions that were not part of the original agreement. Terms that they have no legal right to ask for and I do not have to give up!

Here is the document that was provided to me on the 19th for the Audit that I reference in my video:

http://azkaraokealliance.com/karaokedocs/Voluntary%20Pre-Suit%20Audit%20Acknowledgement%20of%20Terms%20and%20%20Questionnaire%20REV%201-10-2012.pdf

The purpose of a successful audit is to get a Covenant not to sue - Here is the doc they gave us for that -
http://azkaraokealliance.com/karaokedocs/5-4-11%20COVENANT%20NOT%20TO%20SUE.pdf

I already have a signed agreement on Sound Choice letterhead allowing me to have discs media shifted and agreeing not to take actions against, me, but Sound Choice refused to look at my discs unless I comply with their new audit terms which are all based on the fact that I do not have permission and must give up rights to get that permission. Problem is I already have permission on a document signed by an office of their company at the time it was issued.

_________________
Eric Godfrey
http://USKaraokeAlliance.com
http://StarzKaraoke.com
http://Karaoke2Night.com network


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:03 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
Quote:
Problem is I already have permission on a document signed by an office of their company at the time it was issued.


Yeah,well that one was free. Looks like they've decided to change their minds and rescind that one until you agree to their terms and pay up...


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:53 am 
Offline
Novice Poster
Novice Poster

Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:35 pm
Posts: 15
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Been Liked: 2 times
c. staley wrote:
Quote:
Problem is I already have permission on a document signed by an office of their company at the time it was issued.


Yeah,well that one was free. Looks like they've decided to change their minds and rescind that one until you agree to their terms and pay up...


After over 4 years of having that document posted on 2 websites, NO ONE has ever contacted us and said "We rescind that document" or "it was not authorized". If after 4 years of operating in compliance with that agreement, someone wants change it or add terms (because they are still agreeing to the general concept) I am very willing to go to court and argue that case.

_________________
Eric Godfrey
http://USKaraokeAlliance.com
http://StarzKaraoke.com
http://Karaoke2Night.com network


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:15 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
timberlea wrote:
Quote:
A duck is still..... (unfortunately)...... a duck.


.....But a bit of investigation may show that this duck is actually a decoy.

......when people go off half-cocked .


Who brought the chicken into it? Now, is this half duck, half (@$%&#!), or half (@$%&#!), half decoy?

If it was half (@$%&#!), half decoy I would imagine that the chicken would be somewhat st.....um, immobile...

If it was half duck, having one or the other bill/beak would cause a severe nutrient loss for some parts.

Of course, waking up to quack-a-doodle-doo might be interesting...

I once mistook a loon for a duck when I was diving in Silver lake in NH. Seeing it swim underwater freaked me out. On the other hand, I wouldn't mistake a coot. They wear depends and make you pull their finger....

Geez, I gotta get a new book for the bathroom.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:45 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:39 am
Posts: 884
Location: Tx
Been Liked: 17 times
HarringtonLaw wrote:
The new CNS will be available soon--just waiting on final approval of a handful of stylistic changes.


Lisah wrote:
Harrington,
Would you let me know when the new agreement is available? Thank you for your help, I appreciate it.
Lisah


Is the new CNS available yet?

_________________
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
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:06 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:07 pm
Posts: 607
Been Liked: 1 time
I haven't heard anything more on the new contract. Another thing, I remember reading somewhere in here that one page of the contract is supposed to be pink? I was sent the contract in email...there is no pink page...

I guess I've got to stop waiting and see if I can get an answer from SC.

_________________
Image SoundChoice Certification coming soon!


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 192 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 232 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

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Privacy Policy | Anti-Spam Policy | Acceptable Use Policy Copyright © Karaoke Scene Magazine
design & hosting by Cross Web Tech