Karaoke Forums

I thought FSC stood for Full Scale Conspiracy....and the last 6 letters of Comspiracy are PIRACY. Hmmmm

I'm not sure I would say they look fake, but they do look different.

With the state of burning technology these days, it really doesn't make sense to press small runs anymore.

Hey Jimbo. Have you communicated this to EMI's lawyers? Have you brought a motion for summary adjudication/judgment to end this? Have they dropped the suit? Are you seeking fees? Have you threatened Rule 11 sanctions? Truth is, the case is still alive isn't it as are all of EMI's claims? EMI hasn't run for the hills at all have they?

Sorry Lon, have to disagree. They CLAIMED it was world wide, and at the time nobody here gave a damn about karaoke and simply sat it out. However, no one here actually accepted it, and no documentation of such acceptance exists. NOW, thanks to SC, the publisher/owners are involved, and made it known that the overseas licensing does not include the U.S. No copyright laws were changed, because no precedant was set. However, now the enforcement of copyright laws has changed in regard to overseas product.

More importantly, another issue. The GEM licensing was issued to FSC MediaPlas, Not SC. Jim claims that such licensing can be transferred per First Sale Doctrine. Maybe he's right- or not. That First Sale Doctrine- as I understand it- is only transferable within the jurisdiction of the licensing agency. IF that's the case, then MCPS licensing issued to a UK based Producer cannot be transfered to a U.S. based company where the licensor is not recognized.

The thing is-again- if SC goes down, we get pulled along for a big piece of the ride. I'm hoping- not for their sake, but ours- that they can work up a better defense, but only time will tell.

NOW- again thanks to SC- we will have a diminished source pool for new songs, and many other difficulties if they lose the EMI case.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

if that is the case, then every SF, ZM etc. disc you have is not valid. the MCPS license can not be transfered to you as it could not be transfered to SC.

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

Don't you mean when they lose Joe? As you have already pointed out in a previous post they are outgunned legally by EMI. The charges are expanding not contracting and it would seem SC is being stretched to it's breaking point. SC has also filed suit against former contractors for funds not paid to them. Then there is still the matter of CAVS with their civil RICO charges as well waiting in the wings.

It is little wonder they have little time to file more suits against hosts since their resources have to be spread so thin. If the injunction is upheld their last significant source of revenue is gone the GEM series. Then they have nothing to convince hosts to license to avoid court suits. Once they do lose their advocates in the hosting community would be hard pressed to continue to support them. Since in doing so it would violate their own morale standard of not giving aid and comfort to a proven pirate.

The legal problems just keep piling up for SC like a plane that has too much ice on it's wings. The total weight of the load will bring the plane eventually down and cause a crash. In much the same way the company that thought the legal process would be it's salvation, may find it is their doom.

LR and his fantasies. You think because you have a rich fancy lawyer, you'll win. Well that is false. In criminal courts Public Defenders win a number of cases, and don't forget that little old lady who successfully sued Rotten Ronnies when she spilt coffee over herself. The biggest "guns" does not mean an automatic win.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

There is also the recent case of the rich boy in Texas that killed four people and is going to California for rehab instead of the clink where he belongs. I'm sure the fact his folks had the money to hire legal big guns had nothing to do with it. Really tim if EMI thought they had no case they would not be adding to the charges, and they would have cut SC loose along with other defendant which they didn't do. I guess Jim couldn't persuade EMI that there is no basis to their charges.

P.S. Tim what are fantasies, they are dreams, at this time of year you can dream of a White Christmas. Anytime you engage in legal activity it is like war you can't predict the outcome. Just like war it is a numbers game you can't always win, the more you engage the more likely you will lose an engagement. Lately SC has had a hard time going after the small fry. How are they going to fair against an opponent that is equal to if not even more competent than they are? My money is on EMI and if they fail there is always CAVS. You throw enough stuff at the wall eventually something will stick.

Joe, do you enjoy just making up facts? Because you seem to do it a lot.

One difference between you and me is that I am accountable for what I say. You clearly are not.

Jim does it really matter in the long run who says what or how it is spun? The truth will out in the end you can't hide it, you can avoid it for awhile, you can delay and hope to wear down the other side. Being a lawyer you should be well aware of that tactic. Eventually everyone will have to pay for their miss deeds they will not escape. That is why all that you send out into the lives of others comes back into your own. Look at all of the dictators in the end they got theirs , from Caesar to Hitler.

If there is nothing to the EMI suit then you and Kurt have nothing to worry about. On the other hand if EMI wins the suit I'm sure you will appeal, being the good lawyer you are, and drag everything out as long as possible. Most likely you will settle out of court where the details will be kept silent. I am just wondering if you appeal the hosts that support you will then say wait till the appeal results come in to pass judgement on SC's conduct. You are lucky in that respect you will be given every benefit of the doubt, something some of the hosts you have gone after did not get.

I started this thread because I believe it could be an important case to everyone who enjoys karaoke. The insights to the thinking of those who own the rights to the music we sing are interesting to say the least. The outcome of this case will likely affect us all whichever way it goes. With the licensing issues at hand, there will likely be one party that walks away from this case feeling more powerful than before and the other will likely be weakened along with the rest of us.

It was my hope that those interested enough to comment would look up the case and read the actual complaint. I did not want to retype the entire 145 pages or even the first eighteen pages that make up the complaint itself, so I just retyped a few passages. There is much more to the complaint itself than the parts I chose to put in the original posting. The first parts of the complaint give a very good explanation of EMI’s reasoning behind the suit. When you read it yourself (link below,) start paying close attention at page six item twenty.


I think the point they are trying to make here is that a third party (FSC Mediaplas) can’t acquire a valid license by using someone else’s (Sound Choice) licensed or unlicensed product. And at the same time a third party (Sound Choice) can’t use a proxy (FSC Mediaplas) to acquire valid licensing for their own product.


While this part should be of particular interest to Gem licensees, the ramifications of a decision on this language could end up affecting everyone. Here, the “downstream commercial purchasers” are both Sound Choice who purchased from FSC Mediaplas and the KJ who purchased from Sound Choice. EMI seems to be claiming that Slep-Tone and the KJs that Slep-Tone “licensed” it’s Gem sets to should have been concurrently licensed through EMI for their further commercial exploitation of the product as downstream commercial purchasers.

Wouldn’t it be nice if all KJs had to acquire “Audio Master” licensing from the publishers to commercially exploit karaoke products? This may not have become an issue at all had Slep-Tone been simply selling the Gem set outright instead of utilizing a licensing scheme.

I believe this is the basis for the vicarious and contributory liability claims. By giving the KJ the product in an easily copied format with instructions on how to copy it, and stickers to authenticate their hard-drives, and all of the other encouragements to copy the product for commercial purposes without licensing to do so, EMI believes Slep-Tone should be held accountable for damaging them; This is very much the same way Slep-Tone seeks to hold venues accountable for hiring pirate KJs.

I’m done retyping; here is a link where you can see the entire document:
http://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/12/09/emi-vs-slep/
If you are interested in the future of karaoke, I encourage you to read the first eighteen pages.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Joe, do you enjoy just making up facts? Because you seem to do it a lot.

One difference between you and me is that I am accountable for what I say. You clearly are not.[/quote]
******************************************

I think it's a shame that an attorney of ANY sort isn't literate enough to read a forum post, but I will re-iterate my statement, with the hopes of clarity:
---------------------------------------
The GEM licensing was issued to FSC MediaPlas, not SC. Jim claims that such licensing can be transferred per First Sale Doctrine. Maybe he's right- or not. That First Sale Doctrine- as I understand it- is only transferable within the jurisdiction of the licensing agency. IF that's the case, then MCPS licensing issued to a UK based Producer cannot be transfered to a U.S. based company where the licensor is not recognized.
--------------------------

Try to comprehend the emboldened part. Can you understand that no statement of fact was posted, but rather an opinion that- eventually- will be decided in court?

Even more ludicrous is the fact that I was hoping that you could mount a better defense so the rest of us don't get screwed thanks to you and SC. In other words, I'm hoping that you are actually going to work smarter in court than usual this time around... What do you think- can you work a bit harder, research a bit more, and maybe actually get the job done-for a change?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

i am really confused

"35. Alternatively, the Slep defendants have materially contributed to and induced the unlawful use of Plaintiff's sound recordings, or have failed to excercise their respective rights and abilities to control the conduct of those responsible for the infringement, thereby deriving a financial benefit from the infringement"

Unless I am confusing terms again. Didn't sound choice make their own recordings? which under the current US copyright laws, would be considered a separate work, and therfore fully belong to the entity that recorded it.

How the heck could there be infringment if EMI didn't own the recordings made unless of course the mechanical portion of the license wasn't paid at all.

-James

NO NO NO They created a derivative work. That's been a huge issue with me from the get go. SC does have LIMITED rights to the derivative works but they still fall under the original rights holders' rights.

That is why SC has been focusing on the Trademark Infringement primarily in their suits. The content of the track is still the property of the original copyright holder, the publishers in this case.

!

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

It's deeper than that. Remember, SC sold their catalog to Stingray. They only personally hold the copyrights to works created after that sale. I think THAT is a primary reason for going Trademark.

I'm glad you find everything so amusing. I wonder if you will be so happy if SC comes up on the short end of the legal stick.

If they lose will you be defending a pirate company? If the injunction is upheld will you turn back in your GEM series for destruction? Will you sue SC for the balance of your license period?

What I find amusing is your complete lack of proof about many things you post here. You should have been a politician.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Sort of like the same lack of proof SC employs when charging a host. Just throwing out suits and seeing which hosts will settle with them before the matter goes to trial. If SC is so blameless why didn't they get the suit by EMI dismissed like KTS did? Oh by the way you didn't answer my questions, so I won't fee so bad about not answering yours.