JoeChartreuse said:
2) No more stolen then all the 100s, if not 1000s of tracks that were distributed by you without proper licensing.
And here is a fundamental failing of this, and most copyright/licensing threads. People talk about this stuff but they don't understand it.
I'll clarify based on the discussions I've had with various people. While it might not be 100% accurate, the information has come from reputable sources, so I believe it to be fairly accurate and certainly 'good enough' for our discussions. When a song is selected for production by a karaoke company they contact the copyright owner (or someone acting on their behalf) for permission. Because these negotiations can take a long time they often strike an initial 'gentleman's agreement' for licenses. So let's take the case of the SC8125 disc. SC contacts the label and strikes a gentleman's agreement while the legal departments are hashing it out. SC goes to the studio and lays down the tracks - and then syncs the lyrics - and starts manufacturing the run of discs based on the 'gentleman's agreement'. Along the way, one of the people who is an owner/part-owner of the copyright on those songs (usually one of the songwriter's) steps in and says - 'Hell no. I'm not releasing my stuff as karaoke!'. Meanwhile SC has printed discs, and then sent them out - only to get this final 'No'. They can't 'recall' the discs that were already sold to private individuals so they pull existing stock, destroy them, take a loss, and work to make an arrangement for copyright on the discs that were sold.
In other words, the initial agreement fell through for some reason. They fully expected those licenses to get approved - only they didn't.
There are karaoke companies that don't even bother to ask for the agreements and instead pay 'after the fact' - which was part of the reason for the lawsuits a while back where one karaoke company sued the others for failing to get licenses (which, IIRC, was dropped, but I stopped following it for a while).
JoeChartreuse said:
3) As far as HD based tracks: since media shifting is, at best a gray area, both you AND PC based hosts are at best semi-legal
If Sound Choice gets permission to distribute over MP3 then it's perfectly legal.
Space shifting is done by someone that has no rights to distribute the work. Meaning a consumer. Mechanical licensing allows for distribution in a variety of formats, with the various formats carrying different inherent costs. But mechanical licensing, sync licensing, master use, etc are purchased by someone distributing the works - ie, Sound Choice.
JoeChartreuse said:
4) You have yet to show ANY evidence of an actual "Investigation". Your misinformation has shown that you do nothing but fill a hat with any names that you can find- probably with the hopes of grabbing as much money as you can before having to actually appear-and lose- in court.
Joe,
Have you tried talking with Kurt? Based on our brief discussions they're not pulling names from a hat. They have reason to file suit in those cities and during their investigations I'm sure they check out all the shows they can. I'm sure part of the problem is that not all investigators are going to understand A/V equipment well enough to never make a mistake.
JoeChartreuse said:
Really? Despite the most recent post, Kurt has admitted that he has no license to media shift, yet he now says he wants to offer MP3s. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?
They aren't media shifting. They are licensing distribution rights for MP3's.
JoeChartreuse said:
1) No problem, Rob. However "Having it on good faith" that they were going to get a license is no excuse for jumping the gun. They distributed without the actual licenses- that's their responsibility. They went for the quick gold without permission.
As I posted above, this is actually SOP in the industry. Kurt alluded to this in an earlier post when he mentioned getting licenses taking so long and how he doesn't understand how other companies do it.
JoeChartreuse said:
2 ) Again, MP3s of karaoke tracks are still not legal in the U.S. no combo Music/Mechanical/Sync licence exists. If SC produces karaoke tracks in MP3s- and admits it- they are admitting to piracy- how's that strike ya? Remember, even Kurt admits that they have no license to media shift.
And again... you post without understanding. They aren't media/space shifting. They are DISTRIBUTING. That requires a modification to their agreements to add that format as a distribution format - not a license to space shift.
Please people... do your home work before posting...