|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
Author |
Message |
chrisavis
|
Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:46 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm Posts: 6086 Images: 1 Location: Redmond, WA Been Liked: 1665 times
|
kjathena wrote: Any publisher will know exactly how many times the song they licence (for rental) is played....
For the Karaoke Cloud Pro service, I don't see how they can track plays unless 1) They force the use of a proprietary player or 2) Require that existing players link to some sort of API in their cloud service. Neither of which is a viable option in my opinion. I still do not believe that Karaoke Cloud Pro will ever get traction based on the information that we have so far from them. To the OP - Pay the bill. Do the right thing, and feel good that you have done your part. -Chris
_________________ -Chris
|
|
Top |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:01 am |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm Posts: 5046 Been Liked: 334 times
|
darbykplace wrote: SC and I settled recently in Ohio. My case has no confidentiality agreement and I did receive authorization for public performance as well as a covenant not to sue in the future.
K J A clarification, please. Reading the following from your post: "As I just settled a karaoke lawsuit based on not having permission for public performance for my legally owned cdgs" This gives me the impression that SC sued you for running a disc based show, not a PC based show. Is that correct? Also, they did so for public performance, not Trademark Infringement? Is that correct?
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
Top |
|
|
doowhatchulike
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:22 am |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:35 am Posts: 752 Images: 1 Been Liked: 73 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: darbykplace wrote: SC and I settled recently in Ohio. My case has no confidentiality agreement and I did receive authorization for public performance as well as a covenant not to sue in the future.
K J A clarification, please. Reading the following from your post: "As I just settled a karaoke lawsuit based on not having permission for public performance for my legally owned cdgs" This gives me the impression that SC sued you for running a disc based show, not a PC based show. Is that correct? Also, they did so for public performance, not Trademark Infringement? Is that correct? There are NO suits filed in Federal court by SC in regards to "public performance"...
|
|
Top |
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:37 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm Posts: 4433 Location: New York City Been Liked: 757 times
|
I am repeating my post again, for Darbykplace to respond. c. staley wrote: So let's see:
... #2. He got sued - whether or not they were "mediashifted" was not specified...
#3. He's really caused them NO damage at all if he owns the discs and mediashifted. #4. His "penalty" for purchasing their product and using it on (apparently) a computer was a lawsuit and a settlement...
darbykplace wrote: SC and I settled recently in Ohio. My case has no confidentiality agreement and... Since Darbykplace has stated that he is not under any type of gag ruling, and he can freely discuss his case, I'd like to see him post the details as to what took place, what was the settlement, and how much did this settlement cost him.
|
|
Top |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:21 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm Posts: 5046 Been Liked: 334 times
|
doowhatchulike wrote: JoeChartreuse wrote: darbykplace wrote: SC and I settled recently in Ohio. My case has no confidentiality agreement and I did receive authorization for public performance as well as a covenant not to sue in the future.
K J A clarification, please. Reading the following from your post: "As I just settled a karaoke lawsuit based on not having permission for public performance for my legally owned cdgs" This gives me the impression that SC sued you for running a disc based show, not a PC based show. Is that correct? Also, they did so for public performance, not Trademark Infringement? Is that correct? There are NO suits filed in Federal court by SC in regards to "public performance"... OK, but still wondering if a disc-based host was sued, and on what grounds....
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
Top |
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:07 am |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm Posts: 22978 Songs: 35 Images: 3 Location: Tacoma, WA Been Liked: 2126 times
|
I'm thinking it was a matter of they owned their discs but ran off computer, didn't certify and got hit.
_________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
Top |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:34 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm Posts: 5046 Been Liked: 334 times
|
Lonman wrote: I'm thinking it was a matter of they owned their discs but ran off computer, didn't certify and got hit. Could be, but reading "... for public performance for my legally owned cdgs"
doesn't give me that impression....
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
Top |
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:17 am |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm Posts: 4433 Location: New York City Been Liked: 757 times
|
Lonman wrote: I'm thinking it was a matter of they owned their discs but ran off computer, didn't certify and got hit. JoeChartreuse wrote: Could be, but reading "... for public performance for my legally owned cdgs" doesn't give me that impression.... And rather than continuing to battle it out amongst ourselves over wordplay, I'm still waiting to see if Darbykplace is going to respond to my question about what happened.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 674 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
|
|