|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
Author |
Message |
Lonman
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:02 pm |
|
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!
|
|
Top |
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:04 pm |
|
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 |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:08 pm |
|
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 |
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:25 pm |
|
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!
|
|
Top |
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:04 pm |
|
|
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 |
|
|
rickgood
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:08 pm |
|
|
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 |
|
|
starzkj
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:33 pm |
|
|
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=23467Those 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.pdfIt 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.pdfThe 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.pdfI 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 |
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:03 am |
|
|
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 |
|
|
starzkj
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:53 am |
|
|
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 |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:15 pm |
|
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 |
|
|
hiteck
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:45 am |
|
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 |
|
|
Lisah
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:06 am |
|
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.
_________________ SoundChoice Certification coming soon!
|
|
Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 261 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
|
|