Karaoke Forums

Just tuned into the Karaoke Summit.

Kurt Slep with Sound Choice has mentioned talks with Music Publishers in sharing investigative data with them to pursue copyright infringement lawsuits on those using pirated tracks from orphans like MM, BS, SGB, etc....

I wonder who will be dropping all the brands now?

Videos of the summit will be available on YouTube hopefully by tomorrow and I will get the links posted ASAP.

_________________
-- Mark

So what you're saying is, having failed to corner the market competitively, Kurt wants to eliminate the other brands.

Okey Dokey, but there are a few problems with that:

1) Will the big guns think it worthwhile to go after single KJs?

2) If the KJs own and use the original discs that they PAID for- rather than pirated- will there be any damages awarded for use as purchased in good faith?

3) Since there are a HUGE amount of the non-licensed SC discs still in use by KJs, how will this affect SC ( A company still in business, even if not producing) as opposed to the orphan brands where the owners may have disappeared?

4) Since SC is still in litigation with EMI, how seriously will the music companies take Kurt's suggestion?

Yes, he's giving it the old college try, but.....that's OK.

Were he to actually be successful, he could singlehandedly wipe out the karaoke industry.

Think about it. All the "Library Dependant" KJs with exactly the same SC library. No way to compete for them.

Then you have the folks who prefer to sing versions other than SC. "My way or the highway" is not a builder of customer bases.

There are the many good KJs- who pay for their music- who have been at it a very long time and have eclectic libraries to fulfill customer expectations who would no longer have that ability.

What about the songs that SC didn't and won't produce?

Then, of course, once ALL of the sleeping giants get involved, they will all want some money to make it worthwhile- and SC's peanuts won't satisfy them.

OR they could just get sick of the whole thing and get a Cease & Desist in place

Of course, that doesn't have any effect on SC, and maybe it would be his ultimate parting shot at the industry if the litigation business model proves to be the failure it seems to be.

This would have an effect on employees of the karaoke hosting companies as well as the owners.

However, if you find all of this to be a good thing, by all means- keep rooting!

As for me: I don't think he has a shot in hell, but then, I never thought a karaoke company would attempt to sue it's own paying customers either....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

It's almost like you are intentionally not understanding this.

Operators who use pirated copies of MM, SGB, and other defunct labels are still using pirated music in which the publishers own rights. Kurt would very much like to eliminate that piracy, and the publishers can do it. How is that "eliminating the other brands"?



Perhaps not single KJs right away, but the indications I have from my discussions with publisher is, yes, they are very interested in tapping into litigation both as a mechanism for driving legitimate sales and as a revenue stream.



If those original discs are legitimate, royalty-paid discs, they have nothing to fear from a publisher's suit. However, copyright infringement is a strict liability offense. If the materials were pirated, the publisher will still win, but damages could be reduced significantly if the operator was duped into buying pirated content.



It won't, because your premise is wrong.



We are being taken very seriously by at least one major publishing group.

There is no substance to the EMI suit. (I note that you complain frequently about a lack of investigations by SC in its suits--even though we always investigate--but there was no pre-suit investigation by the EMI attorneys before this suit, and we hear not a peep from you on that point.)

HARRINGTONLAW SAID:
QUOTE: "We are being taken very seriously by at least one major publishing group.

There is no substance to the EMI suit. (I note that you complain frequently about a lack of investigations by SC in its suits--even though we always investigate--but there was no pre-suit investigation by the EMI attorneys before this suit, and we hear not a peep from you on that point.)" END QUOTE


I am going by what I read on the court briefs when I ask, isn't the evidence they are using easily accessible from SCs own catalog listing? It is obvious that the investigative accessibility is different between an operator in public venues and a significantly sized privately owned company...

jeez... did you really have to quote the entire post to ask your question? could you edit that?

_________________
Never the same show twice!

I never do that anymore, for two reasons: 1) I have not heard of anyone complaining about space issues on the KS server; and 2) I do not like running the risk of being accused of taking things out of context...but thanks for your concern.....

As for the last statement, it would depend on to whom one speaks. EMI certainly thinks that the suit has substance. Since they have substantial funds one could assume that their legal counsel is no less trained or experienced than yourself.

Though you state that there was no investigation, I would have to give EMI as much of the benefit of the doubt as you feel SC deserves when the same statement is made in regard to them.

I also note that you haven't commented on the grave damage such a thing- if it could possibly be enacted- would have on the industry, so I will re-state them:

Were he to actually be successful, he could singlehandedly wipe out the karaoke industry.

Think about it. All the "Library Dependant" KJs with exactly the same SC library. No way to compete for them.

Then you have the folks who prefer to sing versions other than SC. "My way or the highway" is not a builder of customer bases.

There are the many good KJs- who pay for their music- who have been at it a very long time and have eclectic libraries to fulfill customer expectations who would no longer have that ability.

What about the songs that SC didn't and won't produce?

Then, of course, once ALL of the sleeping giants get involved, they will all want some money to make it worthwhile- and SC's peanuts won't satisfy them.

OR they could just get sick of the whole thing and get a Cease & Desist in place

Of course, that doesn't have any effect on SC, and maybe it would be his ultimate parting shot at the industry if the litigation business model proves to be the failure it seems to be.

This would have an effect on employees of the karaoke hosting companies as well as the owners

NOTE: I apologize for the length of this post, but if Jim replies within my post I have to reply the same way, and can't edit.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=27833

And I've complained about it in the past few years as well. It's nice to see (and know) that I'm not the only one that seems to have issues with this.

Joe, we are not talking about eliminating the use of those brands. We're talking about eliminating the use of pirated copies of those brands. People who own the original discs will still be able to use that material. It's the people who don't own the discs, who just downloaded them from some IRC site, who would be stopped. Of course, if the material wasn't licensed in the first place, that would have to be stopped as well--but are you really suggesting that people should be able to use pirated material without consequences?



No. Any material that was put out with less than complete licensing was legitimized at the settlements. If it had to be pulled, then it was pulled, but product that was already in the marketplace was legitimized.



Their access to funds has absolutely zero to do with the counsel they've retained for this purpose, as he works on contingent fee.



You've never given SC the benefit of doubt when it comes to investigations. Why are you showing EMI that respect?

There really is no doubt on that point, however. EMI's lawsuit identifies 160 or so tracks that it contends were not licensed but were sold and are therefore actionable. Nearly all of them were not sold, not even one time, during the three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit. The handful of tracks that were sold weren't sold to EMI or anyone affiliated with it or its attorneys. What that means is that there was NO pre-suit investigation conducted, because minimally a proper pre-suit investigation includes the straw purchase of an allegedly infringing article.



Your argument is both bizarre (which is not surprising) and pro-pirate (which is). No one is talking about keeping legitimate material out of the marketplace. Your dire prediction is based on a faulty premise. If piracy of the abandoned brands is stopped, that gives space for legitimate competitors to come into the marketplace. It's the piracy that is the anti-competitive activity, not the anti-piracy work.

like the ones that wont give you license to make the new tracks that were promised?


there is a three year limit on unlicensed tracks before they become unable to be used to sue?


so if i read this correctly, unless someone from EMI directly bought an unlicensed track within the last three years, the lack of proper licensing becomes moot and SC is off the hook?

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

After all Paradigm wasn't it James who stated "all material is free if you are willing to assume the risk".

I hate to have to say it out loud, but the "anyone" I refer to was implied to mean "anyone that matters." I try hard to avoid this type of clarification on all the other varied forums I frequent, because I do not want to continue stirring this meaningless pot, but I certainly must indicate that I see no merit in being overly concerned about something as insignificant as a "pet peeve", especially when there was no intent, direct or otherwise, to instigate this response--OR, more simply said: "It'll be aight!!!"

You stated that you never heard of ANYONE complaining about space issues on the KS server. What that has to do with anything, I don't know. MtnKaraoke pointed out that your use of quoting an entire post within a quoted post was not necessary to ask a simple question. I pointed you to a section in this Forum (written by the SYSOP, no less), so that you could become aware that some people are bothered by the use of excessive quotes within a post.

What's insignificant to YOU, is not necessarily insignificant to others. The fact that you turned around and basically said, "I don't give a ***k," only goes to show how inconsiderate you are. And to clarify where the intent was, it was in your response to MtnKaraoke. You gave him an explanation as to why you did it, but then ended it (in what I read to be) a sarcastic tone. So, I guess as long as you are NOT confronted about anything you post, then that "anyone" matters. "ANYONE" else is insignificant to you, and deserves no consideration. I get it now.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=27833&p=361137#p361137


It is simply that you didn't address any single point in the previous post(s) you posted a reply. The complete quoting of a post is not necessary, it contributes nothing.

The answer to my question was "NO", you really don't have to quote the entire post. It is annoying.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

Whoa, I hate to say it out loud, but that's incredibly rude!
I'm not sure who you were trying to insult by saying they don't matter, but whether it was the web master of this site or either of the long time contributors, it was uncalled for.
I'm pretty sure I matter less than any of the aforementioned individuals, yet I also share their "pet peeve".
I read far more than I post, and when I see someone quote the entire post in an answer to the post adjacent to their own, I am reminded of my crazy aunt who would repeat the last half of every sentence I said before she could respond with a thought of her own.
It's an even worse experience when reading.
Please, give us some credit for being able to understand that your post which comes immediately after the previous poster's comment is directly related to that comment when the context of your comment fits.
If you think that we are too stupid to understand your comments without quoting the immediate preceding comment , or we don't matter enough to afford us a common courtesy, then why bother posting here at all?
But since none of us matter, you just do what you like.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

It is unclear whether accrued means the initial infringement or the moment the damaged party became aware of the infringement.

Of course, anyone who would make a case that it means the time of the initial infringement, would then have to agree that the pirates that have been operating for longer than three years are in-the-clear.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

woah now, we put out those unlicensed tracks six years ago, you can't touch us.

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

That is what the law says.

However, that is not what I said.

What I said was that it would be a ridiculous waste of time to search the archives for licensing for tracks that haven't been sold within the statute of limitations, because those tracks can never be the basis of liability.

What I suspect has happened is that there was valid licensing for those tracks at the time they were sold, but the licenses weren't renewed and the product was discontinued, but they have assumed incorrectly that the product continued to be offered for sale after the expiration date.

I apologize for the discontent this has instigated, and as a sign of good faith, I have done as has been requested. All I ask is that you all review the amount of effort expended, and COULD BE expended to others who might be determined to "offend", over this relatively minute issue, and see if it balances out...

Please keep an open mind to the fact that, in this day and time, many people make posts from more cumbersome devices, such as tablets and smartphones, that make the editing process exponentially difficult, relatively speaking. One should not be expected to overly concern themselves with "how much is too much", as long as things are done within forum guidelines. I would hate to think how much reprimanding could be done forum-wide for all those who might fit into any one person's pet peeve level.

Seriously...let's move on, ok?

now THAT is a valid and plausible explanation.

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