Karaoke Forums

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?

You stated that hosts using discs for which royalties were paid would have no worries. MM was sued out of business because they DIDN'T have the proper licensing. This means, per your statement, that you are trying to get the use of MM eliminated. However, - and again- it is not, nor has it EVER been the host's responsibility to to verify. the mfrs. licensing.



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.

Nope. SC's liability was covered, but unlicensed discs are still unlicensed. However, I think that you are trying to say that by paying the suits, SC's use of SC's tracks may not be actionable within the parameters of your plan. Could be true.



Their access to funds has absolutely zero to do with the counsel they've retained for this purpose, as he works on contingent fee.
Assuming that is true- and I have no way of knowing if it is or not- would not working on contingency motivate counsel to limit themselves to cases for which they believe there is substance? Why bother otherwise?







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.

Nope. SC's liability was covered, but unlicensed discs are still unlicensed.

This is very precisely not correct. Licensing and legitimization of past sales has been a part of each settlement.

1) A complete, utter, absolute lie. SC has NEVER had licensing for the Eagles disc. Post the documentation, or stop fabricating horseS**t about it.

2) You did not/could not reply regarding you intent to remove the use of other mfrs. in hopes of finding a new market for SC's old tracks.

I note that you are STILL skipping the rest of my post. No answer says a lot....

hold on Joe, you WANT it to be a lie but that doesn't make it one. stuff like that happens all the time in settlements and that would be the best recourse in that situation as they could not realistically pull back the sold discs. you keep saying it can not be licensed at all ever so show us where you are getting this from.