Karaoke Forums

Very light article. I was quoted in it from the Seattle Weekly article I was interviewed for.

http://www.spin.com/#articles/file-shar ... ng-karaoke

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

A SC hard drive. Hmmmm, God only know how much THAT would cost. Hopefully it would come with some vaseline.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

It's interesting that the article says that Kurt Slep would want to sell hard drives but can't....

What's to prevent them from doing it anyway? They currently sell music that can't be licensed in the U.S.

All they need to do is exactly what they've been doing: "licensing" from out of the country like they did in the U.K. and Australia. They don't have a problem selling unlicense-able tracks out of these countries.

I'm sure they could sell hard drives galore if they license them out of Trinidad and Tobago or Bora Bora.... and you can get anything you want out of Mexico as long as you "lube the government wheels" amigo....

did you miss the point that the US laws changed Chip ?

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

This is another in a continuing series of examples where what hurts you are the things of which you are absolutely sure, but which are simply not so.

The UK-based licenses were worldwide, unrestricted licenses. The UK agency that administers those licenses has changed them so that they no longer apply to the U.S. and Canada. The products that are being sold or licensed now are "grandfathered" because they were the subject of a first sale prior to the change.

SC does not sell any product in Australia. Clark Music is a licensee of the trademarks and the copyrights and pays royalties for its use of them. Clark handles license payments to the publishers through the Australian processes, and SC is not involved in that. Clark Music is not now and has never been owned by SC.

I suppose that when you say

it's technically not a lie because you believe it to be true. But, like a lot of the "information" you put out there--which several defendants have relied on to their detriment--it's just simply not so.

SC is an American company that sells products to the American market. In order to do so, it must follow American laws, which give control of licensing for distribution to the music publishers. Selling drives out of Mexico, Trinidad, or Bora Bora would do no good because the market is in the U.S. So your suggestion, like much of what you write, is utter tripe.

Must have touched a nerve?


Uh huh.... how convenient. And it appears that 2 years later and hundreds of lawsuits, sales and settlements, the "imported and grandfathered stock" hasn't even begun to run low has it?... It's like the fountain of karaoke...


Yeah, right.... sure. Whatever you say. And Clark music freely distributes in America - see below where you claim; "[SC] must follow American laws, which give control of licensing for distribution to the music publishers." Which just happens to be direct contradiction... the whiplash is killing me here...


While I'd rather not post the exact post from SC's own website (since I don't want to be in violation of any rules here), I believe Kurt Slep stated in his own forum --to paraphrase of course-- that; SC sought licensing out of the U.K. in order to sell songs whose licenses were unrenewable, had expired, or it was just too expensive in the U.S.

Otherwise, the Gem series would have been licensed here right? SC wants to make sure that it gets paid for the product they sell, yet turn around and disregard the AMERICAN artists' and AMERICAN songwriters wishes, avoid the AMERICAN publishing houses yadda, yadda, yadda. But let's simply call it a "wise business decision to save money" right? You want to get paid full price for your product and at the same time undercut, nickle and dime the publishers, artists and writers? When an American artist says "No, I don't want my songs on karaoke" you can flatly ignore that by licensing elsewhere. Nice.



I don't think so. Your licensing is in the U.K. and Australia for your product you sell in the "American market." It's nothing more than an "end run" so don't try to confuse anything by stating that there is any such "control of licensing and distribution to the music publishers." There simply is not in your rule book.

Methinks you speaketh with forked tongue.



Seems to work for the U.K. and Australia just fine for SC.

Since you can't seem to resist taking any opportunity to fire off a potshot and to clarify your last statement where you are apparently confused (again), you would find an "utter" on the outside of the cow and tripe on the inside.... also known as Menudo. Unlike you, at least what I write is not something found on the ground.... just south of the northbound cow. [insert drum stinger here]

It is utter tripe that cows have utters. You should have uttered that cows have udders. Much like Chowder is not a clam, Menudo is not tripe, it is a stew with tripe in it (and no udders). Now one could utter that Menudo the singing group (with Ricky Martin) WAS tripe, but that's a different utterance altogether.

I've been "gotcha'd" by the great and powerful Bazza!

It's little things like spelling that will trip you up every time...

("trip UP?" Don't you usually fall "down" when you get tripped up? It's all so confusing...)

Not at all. Somebody has to counter the false statements you make on here.



I have no idea how much they have on hand, but all that they have, they purchased and received prior to the end of the worldwide license.



There's no "whiplash." If Clark chooses to sell into the U.S., and gets in trouble for it, that's on them. I don't work for them.



SC did not disregard the American artists', songwriters, or publishers' wishes. The UK license was a worldwide license--something that the American artists, songwriters, and publishers agreed to, at rates they agreed to. They certainly did not have to agree to be represented by MCPS for U.S. rights--the evidence of that is that they changed the license when they did. So yes, it was a wise business decision that saved money.



The licensing for all products that are currently sold or licensed to users, including GEM and traditional products, was valid for the U.S. at the time of the first sale. Saying that it wasn't doesn't make it so just because you want to damage SC. It's not an "end run." It's a system they set up and agreed to.



The assistance you gave to the bars down in Panama City...did you get paid for that work, or did you do it for free? If the former, you should probably consider offering them a refund.

Not knowing what you're talking about, what kind of accusation are you attempting to plant here? It seriously sounds like an interview from National Inquirer:

National Inquirer: "Mr. Harringtonlaw, when exactly did you stop beating your girlfriend?"
HarringtonLaw: "I don't have a girlfriend and I've never beaten anyone."
National Inquirer: "So... you DENY that you even have a girlfriend you've stopped beating?"

Keep trying.... This is the second time you tried this tactic in regard to your Florida lawsuits and I'd appreciate it if you stay on the topic rather than try to divert from it with some inflammatory -- and ridiculously untrue -- personal accusations that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

In other words, you graduated law school and passed your bar exam.... so act like it ...counsel.

I'm not "attempting to plant" anything here. I'm stating outright that it appeared to me that you provided some sort of consulting assistance to the attorney who represented two bars in Panama City Beach, Florida, against whom we tried a case in early July. My reason for suspecting that this is the case is that the attorney, who is not an IP attorney in the slightest, attempted to present certain defenses that you have vocally advocated on this forum and elsewhere and did actually present documents that indicated they had been stored on a website you control (but that are not generally accessible through Google, for example).

Now, I don't find that to be a "personal accusation" or indeed an accusation at all. I do find it funny that you now equate helping the defense in a SC lawsuit with beating your girlfriend. I would have expected that you'd be proud to have been consulted. If you weren't actively involved, then the attorney did a pretty good job of cribbing from you.

Given how that case turned out, I was hoping that you would consult for defendants in other cases. But that's just for selfish reasons.

Do you deny that you have consulted with any defendant in any SC lawsuit?

To be fair James, Chip may not have directly counselled the Defendants but he has written many many erroneous arguments on the situation that some fools took to be gospel.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I literally choked and spewed soda when I read this....

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

It's a stupid "National Inquirer question" not deserving of any response whatsoever.

Nice try.

Back to subject? Or do you want to keep diverting from the downloads/licensing issue?

Trinidad said they'd do it if Tobago doesn't want to...

Why? It's a typical tactic of Harrington's. If you hit too close to a mark, he throws in something inflammatory to change the subject and divert attention...

Are you sure timberlea?

I thought I saw some posts about, or from, Rodney mentioning talking, or emailing, Chip regarding him (Rodney) being named in a lawsuit and what to do. Those posts appeared to be referring to some sort of "getting/giving advise".

So sue me for trying to be nice. . But to do a Chippy we we're talking about Panama City not Rodney. Regardless, Chip's legal info for the most part, is garbage. It's kind of like someone telling you to eat peanut butter or hold a penny on your tongue before getting a breathalyzer.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Yeah, I know you were talking about Panama City but Chip has counseled people named in lawsuits in the past.

I am reviewing the linked thread below regarding advise given to Rodney by Chip.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=22794

Timberlea, with all due respect, the statement above is useless to the forum without further explaination..

1) Chip, whether you disagree with or dislike his presentation or not- consistantly backs up what he says with links to quotes, legal documents, etc....

Yes, in these debates, Jim Harrington often does the same.


2) You do not. If you wish to attempt to invalidate one of Chip's statements, it would be helpful if you were to follow suit, or at least keep the negative personalizations out of it.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Thank you for the link, Second City.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."