Karaoke Forums

It seems like you guys are trying to shoot the messenger. It isn't a matter of fear mongering, it is a matter of trying to stay informed. As the fellow from Custom Burn posted, the situation has been brewing for a few years. The fact that some had contacts that gave them knowledge of this and tried to warn people has them branded as either causing it to happen or fear mongering.

I don't think it is the bees buzzing that are the problem so much as the hosts, manus and distributors who either outright stole or pushed the limits past what the rights holders were comfortable to allow. It has gotten to the point that no one wants to license karaoke songs until some control is achieved. But it seems some have to be hit over the head with a two by four before they will believe it.

Staying informed is one thing. But here we have threads filled with lies, speculation and mis-information.

It seems that nobody knows what they're doing or how to do it, what's licensed or not licensed, what's legal or not legal. Remember there are no specific laws regarding karaoke. There is no standard. And now, we have the "No Fly List" to add to pile.

So I say, if you want to worry about something, worry about putting on the best show you can with the tools you have to work with. Like I said, do your best, be legal and do the right thing and you'll be fine.

On the other hand, if you're going to spend all of your time worrying about all this craziness, maybe you should get out of the business. There, no more worries.

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

There is a huge difference between being a messenger and spreading mis-information. I can only equate a small portion of what the "messenger" has stated and what Pete has stated as being the same. The current actions have nothing to do with discs other than they can still sell no fly stuff on discs. The current shift has little to nothing to do with Manus and the sky is not falling on KJs who play downloads. The song police are not gathering to raid anyone who has downloaded tracks. The only thing reconciled is the no fly list has moved out of the US and we already knew that. The hows and whys, on the other hand, currently seem to be completely off base. It has been stated that past purchases of downloads will be fine. KJF stated otherwise. That is horrific mis-information. Universal may have a beef with Tricerasoft, but that is NOT reflected in the lasted actions.

It is perfectly OK for KJf to interpret his interactions with the Manus to suit his beliefs. It is not OK to spread falsehoods as fact. It is also not OK to present information as authoritative when it is regurgitated second hand. Opinions? Fine! We all have them. Getting it right should be a huge premium over being right.

It does seem that Universal has a beef with a reseller in Canada. I imagine they will take action. That still is no reason to pronounce the sky is falling so you best get your disc umbrella.

We shall soon see if it was "falsehoods" being spread or warnings being given....I hope some are ready to eat a good helping of crow

I have done as I was asked (by my wife) and issued the warnings I will be back after it is obvious to everyone what was said was true. Why she even cares about those here who refuse to see is beyond me.

That wasn't my question. I wanted to know if the OWNERS / PUBLISHERS said that media shifted tracks were OK FOR USE AS A SHOW BASIS, not whether a producer said it was ok to rip them. Even your answer from Joe at Zoom didn't specify USAGE.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I found the info to be very similar and what had been predicted. I think some may be misinterpreting on the retroactive download thing but then all we can do is watch and wait on that one. Maybe someone knows something we don't.

But the Tricerasoft argument has been going on for a long time. It has taken some time for it to be finally acted upon and that seems to be the problem with legal manuvers. It is like when bars think they got rid of BMI by hanging up on them only to be sued two years later. In the meantime everyone says you don't need to worry about them, you just have to hang up on BMI and they will go away because that is what someone they know did......for two years....

Guys
Is this a so called legal manufacturer telling us how to by pass things???
from Zoom Karaoke facebook page.....

A Produb licence doesn't cover our content, but we don't mind you buying our discs and then ripping them. Songs already downloaded have been licensed, so no issues there.

I thought you were licenced for the format you downloaded, and any media shifting required a produb licence to do so. A quick check on licences at the PRS web site shows this.

Should zoom be advertising this when the have also stated.....
We have a meeting with PRS next week to find out more information. We'll obviously keep customers updated.

Yeah - looks like they have a very solid background to defend their case!!

Just saying......

Actually, that's correct.. The CD+G mfg is the entity that obtains rights (Contract) from the rights holder.. As purchaser, I have no standing (Legal or otherwise) to inquire about that contract, from Mfg or rights holder.

A question comes to mind: Unlike disc owners, GEM users merely lease their discs. Under certain circumstances could one see their SC GEMs recalled, or would SC sign over ownership to the users to protect themselves?

In other words, while a no fly list wouldn't have an effect on the KJ owner - they weren't the licensor - the would be an effect on SC's usage as they WERE the licensors and STILL OWN THE GEM DISCS. I could envision their usage being banned in certain scenarios.

DISCLAIMER: All of the above are just thoughts coming to mind and I have done no research on this as of yet.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

It's not a lease.



There is no danger of that occurring.

Whew! Well OK then, since you say so..... @:)

Ok folks, you can all rest easy.....

Then again, no matter how it is described,SC owns the GEM discs, and SC is responsible for them...

The publishers/owners could say pull them from their inventory - which, being owned by SC - would include those currently in use. One could see how the question could come up....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Who else.....with more credibility to you than James Harrington......could come here and provide any answer that would be satisfactory to you?

_________________
-Chris

You don't ask the used car dealer if his cars are the best at the lowest prices.

You don't ask the restarauteur if their food is better than anyone else's.

You don't ask someone whose fortune rests on the rise and fall of a company's business about their product, or it's future.

A rep of the publishers / owners, or maybe another production company with not only a better standing but who is still in the production business.

Other producers have nothing to lose by telling the truth. SC is no longer a player in their industry. Jim has posted nothing that disagrees with DMX. Maybe someone from Sybersound, or Universal. There are several better sources in regard to this particular question.

Jim has not disagreed that SC still owns the GEM discs, nor have the users. That makes them SC inventory, right? If other producers have to pull tracks from their inventory, wouldn't SC? If said inventory happens to be in possession of the users, what would stop them from being recalled?

I'm NOT SAYING THAT THEY WOULD BE, but if not, what would prevent it?

These are just QUESTIONS, not statements. I'm just looking for solid answers.

Jim's answers: "It's not a lease " and "there's no danger of that happening " - were not in the least explanatory. I was not debating him, because he DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING PERTINENT to my question. What, exactly - in his two very short sentences - are you defending?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Has anyone noticed that there is little or no country on the "No Fly" list?? It's mostly Rock and Pop. I find that interesting.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

James is highly credible source. That can't be argued. He does represent one of several perspectives so I always consider that when he offers an opinion. I do the same with all those who have first hand knowledge\information. It makes it easier to reconcile when the climate matches what's being said.

In this case, I do not understand how you could question him with regard to the GEM. SC arranged for the licensing for GEM in some form or manner (# sold\timeframe\etc). The GEM was purchased as a static set along with an agreement for that set by the users. How can anyone come back and change THAT agreement down the road? That simply would not make sense to me. Whether they have to adjust the set to accommodate the no fly when their current agreement(s) is\are up would be the one thing that I could see. But this isn't a dynamic offering or streaming thing so I can't see the GEM being affected past or current.

My brevity is based on the fact that I've explained this on this very forum numerous times.

The GEM series discs were legally produced by FSC Mediaplas, a UK company, under a license from PRS for Music (MCPS). Those discs were purchased by SC outright and imported into the U.S. That was a "first sale." After the first sale, the copyright owner loses the ability to control the copies that were sold. The copyright owners do not have the legal right to force a "recall" of this product based upon some "no-fly" list for that reason.

The GEM series agreement is not a lease. It is a possessory license, not entirely unlike a software end-user license agreement. It's true that SC continues to own the discs, but the user is given indefinite possession of the discs along with restrictions on how they may be used.

Joe - I am not defending James. You are asking a question that you will likely never get a satisfactory answer to. I don't ever believe that Universal reps (or any of the other major rights holders) will be posting here about this situation. The day they do, we should probably be worried (too much attention on this in the wrong way will doom what we do).

_________________
-Chris

The problem is that, as I understand it, your understanding and SC's use of the First Sale doctrine is currently being challenged in court. Until a satisfactory ruling has been reached this can't be used as a guarantee of future actions.

Since you have stated that SC still owns the discs, and First Sale Doctrine is still being questioned, would there be any other protections against recalls in place for GEM users?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

It's being challenged on the basis of ... well, actually, nothing. The original challenge was on the basis that SC didn't license the product at all. (Which is sort of true; the product was licensed by FSC Mediaplas, then sold it to SC.) We've supplied evidence documenting the licensing transaction and documenting the sale of the discs, and the license has been confirmed by MCPS.

And that leaves the plaintiff in that case with exactly diddly squat on that point. Which is not nearly as unfortunate (for them) as the fact that they have not even, as yet, been able to prove that they own the copyrights in question.

But keep spreading your Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt--just don't call it integrity.

Jim, the last part of your post was uncalled for, but that has been happening a lot with you lately. Try to pull yourself together and leave the emotional responses at the door. I'm simply looking for information.

I am spreading absolutely nothing. To repeat for the third time for those like yourself with reading comprehension difficulties - I am simply asking a question that came to mind. I have made no statement in regard to this situation, nor has the question been answered. Therefore it remains in limbo.

Keep in mind that though disc based, I am not a GEM user, and have nothing to gain or lose.

That being said, the validity of the question is undiminished.

Hopefully another entity in the production or publishing business will research and reply. DMX? Laughing Gnome? (Also posts here) Anyone?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."