Karaoke Forums

you gotta remember, we went through this with DTE when they first hit with them claiming they were the only legal way to buy SF, ZM, SBI in the U.S. which all three companies said was BS and SF said they were even looking at legal recourse for that statement. Plus Universal Music Group said that all were licensing properly for sale in the U.S. and DTE claim was BS. so the manus and publishers said it was ok, your statement was close enough that the few have gotten the masses riled up and paranoid so i don't believe it was an intentional dig, but a misunderstanding in the paranoia.


Selectatrack did the same thing until they started selling DTE and Karaoke Channel...come to think of it.....Customburn stopped right when they started selling KC as well....

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

Their quality is terrible. I never liked them. 20 years ago I didn't like them.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

That's why they are already pulling songs that they had last week. Either they 'had' the license from the publisher like they state they paid for or they didn't. If they had it, they wouldn't be pulling songs.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

I think it was more coincidental actually. Selectatrack stopped with KC in October of 2012 (I know because I ordered a few rock tracks and when I went back to get a few more, they were gone). DTE was only up for a few weeks as I recall and were pulled in November 2012. And it wasn't until July last year - nearly 8 months later that US ip's were blocked and they went the Tricera route.

My contact at Customburn told me that the site was redesigned and added the download option in Jan 2013 and blocking was put in at that time - and the whole KC library was added as well. So I suppose that could be related.



Got it...

MM is an absolutely LAST resort buy for me. Their quality is typically bottom of the barrel as a rule, yes sometimes they get a couple that are decent quality.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

and then started selling both. seems a bit more than coincidence that the only two who have started doing that started when they got KC....

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

They did do a good job on Velvet Elvis.

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.

I have emails from both Selectatrack and PRS shortly after the Jan. 2011 "ban" went into effect asking them if they were still allowed to sell to us. Selectatrack did say there was no such ban and referred me to PRS. PRS gave me the runaround saying to consult the laws of my own country and when I quoted them back their own law concerning it they quit answering.

The section about UK manus not being allowed to sell to distributors in the US kicked in almost immediately but it took a few years before enforcement on individual sales finally went into effect and the UK companies started blocking US IPs. So yes, I would guess the same is going on with Tricerasoft and it will take a court order or some other threat before they quit claiming that selling to the US is legal

Ok fellas.... this is straight from Universal Publishing:

Dear Mr. Grannis,

My name is Gazz and I have a small karaoke production in the UK (200 songs and growing). I currently sell our content through http://www.customburn.com for UK customers only. I would appreciate your guidance with regards to putting our content on http://www.tricerasoft.com. I am asking because there seems to be quite a bit of debate over the legality of their licensing scheme. Most of the large karaoke producers like SBI, Sunfly, Mr. Entertainer and Zoom offer their content on the site and it apparently has good reach into the USA.

I understand that the licensing scheme in the USA is much more complicated than the UK, so if Tricerasoft has the ability to cover us under theirs it would make good financial sense and we could benefit from the exposure to the US market. I don't expect specifics on their license with Universal, but it would make me feel much better if I knew that they have one in place for downloads and custom discs.

Thanks for taking the time.

Gazz



So you do the math.... Universal represents roughly 30% of all the karaoke content and there is loads of it on Tricera. I have never heard anyone say that they can't access the site and as a matter of fact, they are an advertiser on this site among others.

From a supplier point of view, it makes no sense whatsoever to go near Tricera and it underscores the veiled warning I got from others.

The short answer is, yes.

Copyright infringement is what is known as a "strict liability" offense. Knowledge and intent are not elements of the claim. All that a copyright owner must plead and prove to prevail on an infringement claim is (a) they own a valid copyright and (b) the accused infringer performed an act that violates one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.

That being said, there is a provision in the Copyright Act that allows the damages to be reduced for innocent infringement (or increased for willful infringement), and that conversation would be a point in his favor. Whether it would be enough to push the damages to the minimum is anyone's guess. The minimum, by the way, is $200 per work infringed.

If I were going to buy tracks from a provider, I would probably want to know a bit more about what licensing they have. I wouldn't need to see the licenses necessarily, but I'd like to have some assurances that the publishers and other rights holders are being paid, rather than just a blanket assurance that the product is legal. But that's just me.

Athena tried to get you guys to look at the issues about download licensing for years. I am glad to see the truth is once again being posted. Thank You DMX

It is up to the karaoke manufacturer to make sure they are operating legally. With that said, if I specifically ask if their tracks can be downloaded and used commercially in the U.S. and they say yes, there is no reason for me to take it any further. I did my part by asking if it was legal before purchasing/downloading. So in essence, they have acknowledged and granted permission of their downloads to be used commercially in the U.S.

As a consumer, there is no reason to doubt the company's response. How could anyone ever be sued when the manufacturer has granted permission knowing full well that the downloads will be used commercially in the U.S.?

In this case the consumer did what's right. He straight out asked the company; can I do this, yes or no. Company says yes. End of responsibility for consumer.

Harrington, do you agree?

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.

I'm guessing, NO!

How? Because the law imposes on every user of copyrighted material the obligation to ensure that their activities don't infringe. The manufacturer's permission is mostly meaningless (it may reduce, but not eliminate, the damages).

Consider this: You're walking through the woods and you come upon a "no trespassing" sign. On the other side of the sign, someone is chopping wood. You say to the person, "Hey, would you mind if I walked across this land to get where I'm going?" The person says, "Sure, no problem." You begin walking across the land. Later, a police officer comes and arrests you for trespassing. "But I got permission from the guy who was chopping wood. I have permission to be here." It turns out that the guy who was chopping wood was also trespassing. If he didn't own the land, how valuable is his "permission"? Not valuable at all.



No, I don't. If I were a copyright owner, I would argue that you failed to make a reasonable inquiry. Just asking if something is legal and accepting the answer blindly isn't much of a defense, and it will not keep you from being sued--or from losing. It *might* keep your damages down, but then again it might not.

So this means I should audit SC licensing for every SC disc that I own?

JoeChartreuse??? Please correct my memory if I am wrong but isn't the quote above from HarringtonLaw who represents Sound Choice the same company that has refused to provide such assurance about licensing and told you (us in essence) to just take their word for it that all of their licensing was in order?
(edited once for spelling)

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

I share the frustration that we might be held accountable for something that we have no way of confirming. But I see a difference as far as "good faith" when a US person buys a US disc from an established US company vs a US person buying a disc or download from a UK or Canada company when Title 14 of our copyright law and the PRS in the UK says that they aren't licensed for here. In the latter case, we do have some indication that there is no licensing in that the US opted out of worldwide licensing in 2011.

Of course a UK or Canada company could claim they jumped through the hoops and obtained US licensing but when they are selling no flyers then that is another hint that maybe not all the ducks are really in line as claimed.

Discs and downloads are covered under entirely different licensing. If you own a discs manufactured by a company that does not pay properly you ARE insulated. If you buy a download that insulation is not part of the purchase. If you are 'legally injured'(sued and/or suffer a loss) you do have to option to sue the company that you purchased the offending track(s) from if they still exist. This is a big part of why we purchase tracks on disc and minimize any download purchases. Do you really think you stand much of a chance of 'legally being made whole' for losses after the publishers are done with the download sellers ?

Do you really think you stand much of a chance of 'legally being made whole' for losses after the disc manufacturers are done and gone? (read Chartbuster)

Face it folks, this whole industry is corrupt (and illegal) and it starts at the manufacturer level and by virtue of us buying and using their product as intended, we are now corrupt and illegal.

...and we sit here with holier than Thou attitudes and badmouth and denigrate pirates.
...just sayin

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

You should seek to do as much auditing as it takes to make you feel comfortable. SC is under no obligation to tell you anything, and you aren't under any obligation to buy or use the product.

But I'm not talking about a detailed license review. I'm just saying that it would be a good idea to ask for some details about what makes the product legal. For example, with regard to the GEM series product, we've explained in detail how we went about licensing the product and pointed customers to third-party documents that confirm that licensing arrangement.

Asking "Is this legal?" and accepting "Sure it is" as a response is probably not a thorough enough inquiry to reduce your damages if they were lying to you.