Karaoke Forums

Hmmm.... when Harrington decided "not to share information" it's perfectly acceptable with you, but when I respond in kind, it's somehow a "childish game?"

Geez.... say "hi!" to his colon while you're up there....

and once again in the interest of staying on topic:

Would you purchase tracks from this site and consider that purchase to be "in good faith" and therefore not responsible for going all the way back up the chain to the publisher to find out if it is legal to use?

No; I don't use AVIs..

Here's a bone for Harrington..
From their terms and conditions..

Terms and conditions to use this service

Because some of you are too lazy to read through the whole thing, a few short words regarding copyright violation and warez: we do not want that stuff here!

PRIVACY MEANS NOT PIRACY

We do not look into your files and data at any time, if we do not get complaints. But if we do, we will check, what you distribute and if it is illegal, your account will be deleted instantly without refunding. If the the copyright is in question, we will try 3 times to reach you to warn you upfront, but then your files are gone!

Would you if they were sold as mp3+g as well?

Is the format your only objection?

Not since you provided something to verify.



You know that SC has not authorized this, so no, it would not be a "purchase in good faith."

Thanks, Second City, but I already had it.

And yes, when you do it, it's a childish game.



Here is the thing.

You are always responsible for all of the copyright infringement you commit. It's a strict liability offense. Innocence is not a defense, although it can be used to reduce, not eliminate, damages.

SC is a known entity that is subject to the jurisdiction of the American courts. If you happen to be sued for copyright infringement based on your use of original manufacturer disc SC tracks, you have recourse--and, more importantly, you know that the publishers have a target they can reach if something isn't right.

An entity that isn't in the US, or that isn't a known entity in terms of where it is organized or who is behind it...just as the music publishers have a harder time going after such an entity, so will you if the publishers go after you. So it makes good business sense to demand a higher level of proof that the product is legal.

Wow. Lucky that none of these responses had anything to do with my stated opinion . I didn't want this debate blamed on me....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I'm sorry, you're disqualified.... The question in this thread is directed to karaoke operator's. Not manufacturers or their legal counsel.

Besides, there is no way for me to know whether or not SC has/or has not actually authorized this since the logo on the tracks does not belong to them. I will grant you that what you usually referred to as trade dress is strikingly similar and perhaps the audio was licensed from SC to use. Just as the audio and trade dress is used by Stingray Digital out of Canada. At the best, your comment above is nothing more than hearsay.

And there are plenty of tracks in this business where the encoding of the graphics is different however, the actual audio track is exactly the same as another manufacturer. Meaning that they either purchased them from the same place or they share them in order to enlarge their own catalog.

Nice try and thanks for playing!

It was pretty easy for you to identify them as SC tracks because of that trade dress, which is precisely how trade dress works. Thanks for validating our position on that.

SC has not licensed the audio or the trade dress to the company in question. Neither has Stingray.

I'll grant you that.


So now, your on to copyright infringement and trademark and trade dress are out the window... And let me correct your statement; "SC WAS a known entity..." they are not in the manufacturing business anymore from what I can tell.



But even YOU won't provide that "higher level of proof" when asked for verification of licensing information - by your own customers. Face it pal, SC HAS been sued by publishers (more than once) for not licensing (which may be called in some arenas "piracy") in the past - there are lawsuit records to prove that and they include HUNDREDS of tracks. So pardon me if you feel insulted that I might just not "trust you" when you wave your flag. It's like the fly wondering if he should accept a formal dinner invitation from the spider.

Your client (as well as Chartbuster and a whole host of manufacturers) created the lack of trust that this business has today. Manufacturers would pirate their mothers to make more sales and now look where they are. Don't expect lots of sympathy from the very same group you're currently sniffing up and investigating only to sue in Federal Court.

"Enforcement as a Sales Tool" -- Kurt Slep

ok, i have SC8430, show me a higher level of proof that the product is legal.

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

Sorry, I'm not "validating" any position of yours... for any reason whatsoever.
Nice try.
Take a look at the "trade dress" between Panorama records and Pop Hits monthly.... also "strikingly similar."



More hearsay.... with no licensing proof to back up your flimsy statements -- you must be making this up.... another fabrication.




Good luck... when it comes to "proof" they will exempt themselves....

(And how dare you ask THEM for real, live proof!)

But when we get back to the subject, it looks like those karaoke hosts that don't use AVI files, can actually purchase these songs and capture the audio to re-encode the graphics which is "format shifting" in order to be compatible with their karaoke systems.

You chopped out the part that provides context to the statement.

You have all the guarantees you need. If you get sued for using your original media, you know where to turn. If that's not good enough, your recourse is not to use the product.

Bwahaha!....

And the magic answer is:

"Trust us... or don't use us."



Which really means:

#1 If you trust us, and use our product, we may end up suing you even if it's by mistake.

#2 If you don't trust us and don't use our product, you also can't be sued by us.... ever. And we are not making any new product at the current time.

now, which sounds like the better business decision?

For most people, given the quality of the music and the extreme rarity of being sued by mistake, it's not even close: #1 is the far better business option.

For people who suffer from extreme paranoia, or whose operations aren't fully on the up-and-up, #2 is probably the better choice.

Coming from a person whose financial incentive is to be involved in lawsuits, I can certainly understand why you would recommend that KJ's would continue to use your client's product. The more of their product they continue to use the more exposure they may have to a lawsuit (by virtue of some rule being changed at a later date) and consequently, your involvement.

While the quality of music is good, it certainly is not going to make or break anyone's karaoke show. Ever.

Besides, any reputable attorney would recommend to simply dropping one vendor in order to protect yourself – and your venues – from any legal exposure, justified or not.

Wouldn't you agree counsel?

soooo, trust you it's legal and no proof necessary.

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

If it's not, and you get sued, you know where to go.

Are you going to go to Canada if you need to sue somebody?

"If it's not????" Really? Is that the best your client can offer their own "certified" customers?

HarringtonLaw is purposely avoiding the point that Paradigm is looking for a method to avoid a lawsuit entirely and not a method to determine "who to sue when there IS a lawsuit." And the "suing party" will most likely be the same manufacturer you're supposed to "trust" and from whom you've purchased the product.

I've not seen a single lawsuit from a publisher against a karaoke host since the dawn of time. So I'm wondering who it is Harrington is suggesting would be doing the suing?

Exactly. So why are you worrying about it?