Karaoke Forums

I want to believe as well, but without actual names - even just the song title, it's hard to believe.

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

Then Lonman, I'd simply recommend that you don't believe. I'm not trying to "convince" you -- or anyone else -- of anything.

What exactly would you do with "actual names" anyway? Sing the song? Call the publishers? How would that make any difference at all?

Earthling has it right; most of you are so focused on what doesn't matter, that you can't (or refuse to) see what does matter.

How many times over the years have KJ's been told that "Not authorized for public performance" was printed on discs as a requirement of publishers? And how many times were you also told that it's meaning was that it is "not authorized at any club that didn't pay performing rights societies' fees?"

It appears from at least one (very large) publisher that the discs were never "licensed for public performance" and that karaoke manufacturer(s) knew that as well.

Sounds just like some large pirate saying; "yeah, we bought the catalog a few years back..."

Believe what you want... nobody's pushing you to believe anything you don't.

Timberlea, have you made a post that is NOT spouting SC as the god of karaoke?

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

(he's having an "off day.")

I am sure it has been addressed in past forum posts, but it seems to me that the logical position should be this:

IF the capacity to use any of these recordings in a commercial setting exists, then why not ask the manufacturers to PRODUCE it to you? It would seem to me that since they have marketed it toward the commercial sect, that implies that these rights exist; and if they do not, then it opens up a whole other can, does it not?

I have seen some humorous irony in the fact that these suits are against people for allegedly duplicating a company's material--material that is ITSELF a reproduction of other's material!

Would just be nice to know. Shouldn't matter what I am going to do with it. Maybe I would call the publisher to verify, just to know. Or maybe I would pull the song, or maybe ...... who knows, but without knowing the song in question or the publisher, it's moot point. This thread really don't have any value other than another SC bash without some actual facts presented.

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

For the record, I happen to believe Chip.

I also don't give a damn about ANY of it. ALL the manufacturers have produced unlicensed product at one point or another. I will continue to use what I have purchased until some legal authority says I can't. As for the rest of it

I choose to believe CHIP
I CHOOSE to believe that Tricerasoft has a license to sell downloads
I CHOOSE to believe that the Karaoke producers like Zoom etc are licensing directly from the music Producers

and until someone provides direct physical proof, i choose to believe that the Karaoke producers left in North America are CURRENTLY operating legally, to the best of their ability.

and I will continue to believe all of the above until someone can prove otherwise.

just my two cents

-James

You DO realize that if SC released material that they didn't have proper licensing to use they would be JUST as guilty as the pirates that they trying to sue. THAT is hypocrisy. They can use illegally obtained material but the public can't?? REALLY?? I think YOU should rethink your argument. PHM has released stuff without proper license, as have many others, but they aren't out suing everyone they can get their hands on.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

im with jclaydon here.
i try to give the benefit of the doubt, because i think that is all we really have. it would be like asking Chevrolet to prove that every nut and bolt has been made or imported properly. i have no reason to believe they are lying when they say they are, and the same with the manus. we all had no real reason to doubt CB until the lawsuit from CAVS, now my opinion of them has changed because of it, but i wont let that change my opinion on others because of it.
I believe Chip has what he says he has, he always has before.
I believe that Tricerasoft has a license to sell downloads, they have given no reason not to.
I believe that the Karaoke producers like Zoom etc are licensing directly from the music Producers, they have said it directly and i have no reason not to believe it.

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

I agree with the above 100%. Licensing is something for SC to deal with, not KJs. And that leads to a key question: If Chip is actually making these contacts--and I have no reason to believe that he actually is--then to what end? Is he trying to disrupt the relationships between SC and its licensors? Because I would be very interested to know about that, and Kurt would as well.

That being said, I have no way of addressing Chip's allegation about the music, because I don't have the slightest idea whom he might be talking about. I don't have time to comb through several hundred thousand pages of historical licenses to determine which 8 of the more than 18,000 songs SC has ever released might fit his description. If he wants to provide that information to me privately--you know, in the interest of getting both sides of the story--he knows how to reach me.



I can address this directly. What is contained in the quote box is actually 100% true as far as it goes, but it is so misleading as to be an utterly useless statement.

Buying a SC CD+G (or, for that matter, a track of any musical type from anyone who is operating under a license from a music publisher) DOES NOT automatically give you the right to use that CD+G in a public setting. Use in public is a "public performance" of the underlying musical work, and use without permission would be an infringement.

For that reason, SC has never sold a CD+G in such a manner as to grant someone a public performance right.

Rather, as SC has always maintained and has informed anyone who asked, it is up to the KJ to verify with the venue where he/she will be performing that all of the performing rights organization fees (ASCAP, BMI, & SESAC) have been paid.

The licenses from the publishers do not state that the discs cannot be sold to anyone who would use them in a business--just that the discs, when sold, do not carry a public performance right.

The quoted text makes it sound like the music publishers prohibit public use of SC recordings. They do not prohibit public use. They simply require proper licensing for public use.

"Disrupt the relationships?" I am doing no such thing. I'm simply protecting myself by verifying that I'm not legally exposed when playing a cd+g disc/track. After all, even Sound Choice's own "Covenant Not To Sue" specifically informs a karaoke businessperson that they are NOT protected from any legal action against them by the "third-party copyright holders" (publishers) even though they've purchased/leased the product for commercial use. As You and Athena are always reminding; you need to analyze and decide how much risk you're willing to accept in your business. My level is zero because I shouldn't have to accept any risk that a vendor I've paid is pawning off on me.

Besides, I can't exactly ask Sound Choice to prove to me that the product they've sold me at premium prices was licensed in the first place can I? When asked in the past, the standard answer has always been that it's "none of your business." And you can see where that type of answer lead many of us with Chartbuster Karaoke (matey). In the meantime, SC turns around and files lawsuits to demand similar "proof of licensing" to its own customers.


I have no interest in your side of "the story."

However I did notice that you've skipped entirely commenting on this "other story" from the publisher above who claims that of the 1 song -- out of 8 -- that was in fact, "licensed" was not licensed for synch (sweeps) or Lyric reprint.

Seems as though if I play any of these songs that now I would be the one "on the hook" from the very same publishers ("owner of the underlying musical work") for the lyric reprint and synchronization. And that's a "risk and exposure" I wasn't expecting and simply am trying to protect myself from.

This is one inquiry to one publisher regarding one artist.... So I have to wonder how many (to use your words); "of the more than 18,000 songs SC has ever released might fit (t)his description."

Hear hear!

_________________
KingBing Entertainment C'mon Up! I have a song for you!!! [font=MS Sans Serif][/font]

I'll take his word for it, because he's backed up everything he posts.

However, this is why I don't post all the backup links that Chip does- because someone will always argue the point anyway.

If one has a problem with the validity of posted information, all one has to do is check oneself. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping one from contacting the publishers to verify except an unwillingness to put forth the same effort that Chip has.

If one does the work oneself, one will KNOW- and no need to argue or debate.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Here's some food for thought: If an entity sells a product, and markets it toward those who would use it in the commercial sector, doing what most consider to be endorsing its use without the right to do so, is there a scenario under which they could be held liable? Seems like such activity could be considered fraudulent, or perhaps categorized under some more "class-action"-able offense.....

Here's an example of your exact scenario above:

If an entity sells a product,
(Chartbuster Karaoke)

and markets it toward those who would use it in the commercial sector,
(CAVS USA a reseller)

doing what most consider to be endorsing its use without the right to do so,
(because CAVS was assured the songs were licensed properly by Chartbuster)

is there a scenario under which they could be held liable?
(Yes, CAVS was sued by publishers for copyright infringement)

Seems like such activity could be considered fraudulent, or perhaps categorized under some more "class-action"-able offense.

(It was considered fraudulent and CAVS sued Chartbuster and I would agree.)

And now the question of the hour is:
Do you believe with a reasonable amount of certainty that Digitrax has proper licensing in place for the 12,000 song catalog acquired from the ashes of Chartbuster?

Would you believe them if they told you they do?

It could be that there is no scenario that directly correlates with this one, which may be the loophole they feel they need to embark on such a venture. I feel it is the rule more than the exception for almost any company to exist in the "gray area" in one or more aspects of operation. Now, whether there is liability on the part of a particular company for leading others into the gray area, when that gray area ends up having been black all along, is something worth considering...

The problem lies in how much the "gray area companies" might be purposely hiding and not that it's a matter of them "leading others into the gray area" but more along the lines of a Burmese tiger trap: You don't know you're infringing -- with no way to verify or know in advance -- until it's already too late. You're simply told to by these companies to "trust us."

Such was the case with CAVS and Chartbuster Karaoke. CAVS was assured -- as part of the sales contract -- that Chartbuster had the right(s) and licenses in place for every single song it sold to CAVS when it fact, it did not. Was it CAVS responsibility to ignore those assurances and verify the complete licensing of every single track they wanted to resell with each and every publisher?

As KJ's we've been told for years to "trust us" when it comes to licensing from virtually all the karaoke manufacturers.

The bottom line may be that the karaoke manufacturer may have plenty of liability when it comes to leading others into the gray area however, it's only going to be apparent when it's already too late and a KJ gets sued by a publisher.

I can't think of any other reason why a document like the Gem License will have language in it that the KJ must indemnify SC against any actions by the "owner of the underlying musical work" if all the licenses and permissions were solidly in place.

Sounds an awful lot like rats deserting a sinking ship. I've pretty much kept my opinions to myself on this whole matter with SC. However, I have grown weary of their accusations, hypocrisy and most especially their witch hunt.

I have already begun "weaning" my regular following off of SC tracks, and will eventually eliminate them from my shows entirely. Sorry SC, but enough is enough!!!

But that's exactly what i'm getting at saying song "*** **** ** ******" is NOT proving anything. Something posted that can be backed up would actually have a name of a song & publisher talked to - there is nothing to 'back up' what he states in the OP except a bunch of little asterisks.

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

Then simply take the position that you don't believe what you don't want to believe without a full disclosure. But make sure that you're not the one with the double standard; I would hope that you would hold Harrington to this same standard and not blindly accept what he tells you as truth unless there is substantive proof.