Karaoke Forums

No they aren't a pirate, they just shifted their material without permission.

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

Paradigm is right. It costs SC NOTHING when a guy shifts the stuff he bought, as long as he is using that shifted media in one rig, and the discs are only for back up. Charging people for the permission to do that is pure greed. If I were to shift my 28 SC discs, (and don't start drooling Mr. Harrington, I'm not going to), but I should be able to e-mail SC or call them and just get permission, because I am, or have been a good customer. I shouldn't be told I need to be audited for $150. It's bad business. If they want to charge the people they name in lawsuits, that's one thing, but those who ASK for permission should just be granted permission.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Really. Just because it is IP, it doesn't change that it is a product. What do you think any other company would do if you could copy THEIR product at a very small fraction of the cost and use the copy? Why should IP be treated ANY different from any other product? That is the question no one seems to be able to answer.

Then there is the problem that people do not want 1:1 but have several copies on a harddrive if there is a failure. So they are not even happy with 1:1.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Very true. KJ with only a few thousand songs is much less likely to be a pirate. Though to some, a media shifter is STILL a pirate, including Harrington, or so it would seem.[/quote]

----------------------------------------------------

Point of interest: Does simply not having permission to media shift - standing on it's own- constitute the creation of a product that can be defined as "Counterfeit"? As Webster's Standard Dictionary: adj.- Forged; Fraudulent- n. an imitation -vt. to make a copy with intent to defraud -vi. to practice deception



I'd say no, since no allegation of actual music theft are included within the suits, the court must assume that the media shifted tracks were paid for originals. Where is the intent to defraud, and why?

So: SC is not going after the people who damaged them (thrack thieves) but going after media shifters who cost them nothing, and according to the suits, have stolen nothing, but paid for their music.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I get the impression that you continually ignore the fact that though they control their trademark, they are not allowed to stick it anywhere they want without permission, then gain by it's display. It doesn't work that way here in the good old U.S.A.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

The problem here is that SC is being ridiculous about it. MOST other brands are allowing shifting with an e-mail or a phone call. EVER CB will give permission for up to ten of their discs without an audit. They have no problem with shifting of the SGB series, either. I have permission of Party Tyme, All Star, CB, and it turns out that PHM isn't doing audits at this time, and are fine with shifting, as long as you keep the discs. So now it's SC that are the ONLY ones being sticklers about it. I am getting a set of Super Core, next, and I am now trying to track down who holds the rights to their discs to get permission to shift them, as well. I am doing plenty of homework here, to make sure all is well and legal.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

And again, it is their right to do so. ABC restaurant may offer free refills, while XYZ doesn't. Does that mean XYZ has to offer free refills? No. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

And I won't. Why do you think I keep saying that i won't use their products for anything but my own entertainment? I am just trying to make a point. They are not as customer friendly as they want you to think they are.

Timberlea, I just don't understand why you are the way you are. Why are you SOOOO in the corner of the corporation, instead of being in the corner of the KJs. I don't understand why you are so in favor of the extra charges and audits, when other companies aren't doing that. Are you an employee of SC?? I'm not trying to start anything with you. I am just trying to understand why you are so pro-corporation.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Well thank you for ''bothering". I wonder if you "bothered" to read my post because you seem to have missed the two main points of the post...those being the following:

1) Constant repetition of the same supposed argument, especially when mixed with belittling comments and name calling, does nothing to promote your viewpoint. Indeed you availed yourself of the opportunity to, once again, state your viewpoint even though I stated that your viewpoint was well understood. In your restatement, you implied that I...
a) Am an SC "Cheerleader" (name calling and unfounded)
b) Haven't been on the forum long enough and do not have enough posts to warrant your response (belittling)
c) Have been "Ignoring" portions of one "side" of the argument (unfounded)
d) Need to "wake up" (belittling although I was tired when I wrote that)
e) Have taken a "side" without having taken the time to "learn a little more about both sides" (belittling and unfounded)

2) Aspects of the argument seem to be in conflict with each other (i.e. - Your CDG purchase completed the transaction and you owe SC nothing, but SC still owes you something) You went ahead and repeated your demands of SC (even though these demands have been addressed in other threads)...
a) Guarantee that SC won't sue you for playing the discs you purchased in a disc player from the original discs. (Side Note: This statement is misleading because SC doesn't file a suit FOR using original discs purchased by the KJ in a disc player. While I understand that there have been KJs that have been accidentally sued WHILE using original discs purchased by the KJ in a disc player...that was not the stated reason FOR the suit as listed in the court documents.)
b) SC is somehow responsible for eliminating all human error from the investigations performed on their behalf.
c) SC is responsible to disc based users to "make it a level playing field".
d) That SC is under some obligation to "purchase back these discs at the same retail price I paid for them".

And SC's demands of you in order for you to be able to use your Original Discs from a Disc player in a commercial setting...
Ummmmmm...????...nothing.

In your response you repeated the exact issues that I was pointing out as being unhelpful. Well Done!

Maybe you could create a post with all your opinions (the ones related to SC) and when you feel motivated to chime in with a comment, you could just link us to that post. That way, we could read a thread without all the long repetitive statements.

They are licensed and made in Japan now, don't give a fat rat's a$$ what you shift, and have no juice here in the U.S. if they did. Have at it...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Cool, thank you.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

You seem to be repeating yourself.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

why should it be treated different than any other product? just ask any record label that allows digital backup use (all of them allow for no fee), Same with the Music Videos for VJ's (same, all allow backups being used for no fee) just ask any karaoke manu that allows digital backup use (all but SC & CB allow for no fee).
SC and CB do not have to allow it, that is their choice, and their right to make that choice. but don't confuse that THEY are the ones treating the product differently than the rest of the music industry, not us.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Thank you for saying that much better than I did. That was exactly my point. It IS their right, and their choice. Where I come from they call it GREED.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

The problem is this is thousands of dollars too late. If XYZ had given the policy before I paid, then there would be no problem. They wouldn't have had even a dollar of my money.

_________________
Birdofsong

Exactly!

When I first started building my library as fas as I knew burn copies were ok as long as you maintained possession of the original. I didn't see why the mp3+G should be treated any different than a burned copy.

I'd love to buy and be able to use more of SC's music, but with the current state of the industry I'm not even seeking out gigs.

_________________
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.

I can guarantee you that I will never get pregnant.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

...I feel better now...thanks

The problem with your analogy here is of course that before you purchase anything you will know ahead of time whether or not refills are offered.

Had I known years ago that using these products may lead to a lawsuit in the future, I would have never purchased them.

(... whiny drivel snipped...)



I thought the transaction was completed, apparently sound choice does not. Because they are claiming that they may "accidentally" sue for using the very disks that I purchased to complete this transaction. I believe that sound choice owes any customer that has purchased their products, the right to be able to use them in the manner in which they are intended without the fear of a lawsuit. Even an "accidental one."

For some reason, you seem to think that this is completely unfair?


You may call it "accidental" all you want, but keep in mind there was nothing accidental about it. It is also misleading to minimize the action of a person being sued in federal court by simply labeling it as "being named in a lawsuit."


This seems like one of the few statements you have actually been correct about. Yes, they are absolutely responsible for eliminating all human error, just as they are 100% responsible for the filing of a lawsuit. Do you actually believe that they are at the mercy of incompetent investigators and renegade attorneys?


Only if they expect any future purchases.


They are under no obligation to do anything. Just as I am under no obligation to purchase anything from them. As a consumer, would you purchase something from a vendor if you knew there was a possibility that you would be sued for actually using the product you purchased? Or would you simply purchase a similar product from a different supplier?

Since I was unaware that using their product in the manner in which it was intended could lead to legal action on their part, the only equitable action left open to them would be simply to take back the product at the same price I paid for it. It is called "rescinding the sale."


Far from it. By today's standards, sound choice was paid a tidy sum in order for me "to be able to use my original discs from a disk player in a commercial setting." And that was a pretty hefty demand. Apparently now, the only thing that will get me is the possibility of a lawsuit.

What else do you think they should be able to demand from me or any other customer after purchasing their product?