What's new
By:
Filters

Fighting Back

I wouldn't expect SC to address your comments directly. Particularly since they're involved in a lawsuit with you.

In all honesty, it wouldn't be prudent on either of your parts since your comments here could be used against you.
 
MusicMeister wrote "The licensing just hasn't been set up in the past. It's a licensing agreement that Sound Choice would have to arrange with the copyright owners directly. Basically, it's a modification of their current licensing allowing for a different distribution format. It's not 'illegal' - it's just never been set up before. It's the same sync license they have now - only with a modification to the distribution format to insure they don't upset the people who are licensing their intellectual property with SC."

Ed is exactly correct. The copyright law does not PROHIBIT the use of MP3+G downloads in a commercial setting. Nor does it specifically allow it. As I have written before, the publishers RESERVE CERTAIN RIGHTS and unless they specifically grant a particular right, it is "ILLEGAL" according to them. Yes, if we are able to negotiate the rights with the publishers then we will be able to set up a download site with a EULA (end user license agreement) that states that they could be used for Commercial purposes. However, in discussions to date, the fear on the publishers part is that they would really have no control or good audit procedure for tracking the sales and usage. Some already feel "ripped off" due to the rampant piracy and we have to show (as an industry) that we can present an economical model to them that works. And that's one reason we are following the approach we are taking - by paying them more royalties, we'll have the economic leverage to get more of what YOU want. But KJs have to buy products to generate the royalties to get the publishers interested. Hopefully none of you are stealing the computers you are using - why do some KJs feel justified in stealing the music?
 
Sound Choice said:
Ed is exactly correct. The copyright law does not PROHIBIT the use of MP3+G downloads in a commercial setting. Nor does it specifically allow it. As I have written before, the publishers RESERVE CERTAIN RIGHTS and unless they specifically grant a particular right, it is "ILLEGAL" according to them.
Click to expand...

So it's ok to rip off the publishers, so long as we aren't ripping off Sound Choice? Seriously Kurt......you are making a fool of yourself here, and show your true colors.
 
truthteller said:
So it's ok to rip off the publishers, so long as we aren't ripping off Sound Choice? Seriously Kurt......you are making a fool of yourself here, and show your true colors.
Click to expand...

We All know who Kurt is, we all know who Joe is, we all know who DanDan is, we all know who Rob is, most everyone knows who I am!

So Far the only poster here that I can't give any credence to what they post is Truthteller!

So far the only one I can see for sure who was, has and is "making a fool of himself" is you! But I think you already knew that didn't you?:sqwink:
 
truthteller said:
So it's ok to rip off the publishers, so long as we aren't ripping off Sound Choice? Seriously Kurt......you are making a fool of yourself here, and show your true colors.
Click to expand...

Please tell me where in that quote does Kurt advocate the ripping off of other publishers is ok as long as it's not Sound Choice.... seriously please point out the exact phrase that he used.

Don't bother repling cause I know you can't... the next time you want to pick apart someones post please be sure that your information is accurate.
 
truthteller said:
So it's ok to rip off the publishers, so long as we aren't ripping off Sound Choice? Seriously Kurt......you are making a fool of yourself here, and show your true colors.
Click to expand...

It's not ripping off the publishers. As I stated earlier, Sound Choice is arranging for the proper licensing. It just takes time because this is a new area for them and for Sound Choice.

If the music publishers are being paid for their intellectual property and are specifically granting permission to Sound Choice for distribution using the MP3+CDG format - either on disc (which appears to be the case initially) or through an online store (which appears to be the hope for some time in the future) - how is that 'ripping them off'?


As for the past, I explained that previously as well. Because of the timing involved in obtaining licenses, a 'gentleman's agreement' was often put into place that fell through for a variety of reasons. More oft than not, it was because the LABEL was willing, but someone who owned part of the rights refused (as was the case with the Eagles). As a result, Sound Choice pulled the discs, paid the label for what did get shipped, and ended up eating the discs that were recalled. That means that they lost out on the production of the disc, the cost to produce the disc, and shipping them both ways. In what way did they 'rip the producers' off? They were paid and they met their obligation to the label by pulling the material.

Of ALL the labels, I would consider Sound Choice one of the more trustworthy with regards to licensing. And I didn't keep up wth it, but last I checked the lawsuit claiming failure to license was either dropped or thrown out of court - though to be completely honest, I don't remember Sound Choice being one of the companies on that list. Admittedly, it's been a number of years since then and I didn't really keep up because I more or less got out of the karoake business for a bit.


So....

Don't hold back... tell us what you really mean...
 
"Of ALL the labels, I would consider Sound Choice one of the more trustworthy with regards to licensing"

I've said that many times over the years, but the fools who think otherwise have NO proof, just spew. They've just made up their minds and LOGIC doesn't exist!

I'd consider them the MOST trustworthy. Why do they have to wait to get their music out, when the other mfr's just slap tunes out instantly? This has been a pattern for years. And I don't mean since they started losing money and HAD to put production on the back burner.

L Mc.
 
Sound Choice said:
...why do some KJs feel justified in stealing the music?
Click to expand...
Substitute the word people in place of KJ and delete "the music" and a plausible and universal explanation follows:

The human animal is inherently selfish and must elect or be made to behave otherwise.

In order to effectively elect, he must be capable. This capacity flows from ethics, humility, and experiences. All creatures have experiences, many lack the other necessary components.

These deficiencies are too frequently ignored, tolerated, and, sadly, rewarded by the lazy and complicit.

Force, the other catalyst, can be effective but is a less meaningful or dependable motivation.
Thankfully, the pendulum doth continue to swing...
 
Thunder said:
We All know who Kurt is, we all know who Joe is, we all know who DanDan is, we all know who Rob is, most everyone knows who I am!
Click to expand...

I'm the dude with the bad haircut and sandals......and the only CD player with a hand crank. :sqlaugh:
 
jokerswild said:
Please tell me where in that quote does Kurt advocate the ripping off of other publishers is ok as long as it's not Sound Choice.... seriously please point out the exact phrase that he used.

Don't bother repling cause I know you can't... the next time you want to pick apart someones post please be sure that your information is accurate.
Click to expand...


Sorry Truth, even I have to agree with Rob on that one. I may have posted that there were tracks produced without license- which is true- but I have no way of knowing if SC has completely settled these issues with the publishers or not. Until proof is shown to the contrary, even I would have to assume that settlements were made. Innocent until proven guilty goes BOTH ways- for KJs AND SC alike. I can't have one set of ethics for KJs, and another for SC. If I did, they wouldn't be ethics.
 
JoeChartreuse said:
Sorry Truth, even I have to agree with Rob on that one. I may have posted that there were tracks produced without license- which is true- but I have no way of knowing if SC has completely settled these issues with the publishers or not. Until proof is shown to the contrary, even I would have to assume that settlements were made. Innocent until proven guilty goes BOTH ways- for KJs AND SC alike. I can't have one set of ethics for KJs, and another for SC. If I did, they wouldn't be ethics.
Click to expand...

For SC to remain in business, and continue to get licenses from the labels, they would need to settle quickly. More oft than not, if the gentleman's agreement falls through - then they'd pay the licenses originally agreed to, pull the discs and destroy them. There may be additional penalties involved - but based on the past experiences with SC I have no reason to believe they have released tracks without the proper licensing. The same couldn't be said for some other companies - many of which are no longer around.


On a side note, I'm curious if anyone has information about what happened with the cybersound lawsuit against all the karaoke manufacturers. Was it thrown out, dismissed, dropped, or is it still in the works? I'm just curious since I don't remember seeing the final outcome.
 
MusicMeister said:
but based on the past experiences with SC I have no reason to believe they have released tracks without the proper licensing.
.
Click to expand...

Can't even give SC some cred without a debate, I guess. Kurt has SAID that discs were released without proper licensing, though yes, he has also stated that this was because verbal agreements or understandings had fallen through.
 
JoeChartreuse said:
Can't even give SC some cred without a debate, I guess. Kurt has SAID that discs were released without proper licensing, though yes, he has also stated that this was because verbal agreements or understandings had fallen through.
Click to expand...

Actually, I misspoke. I should have said, 'No discs were released without the licensing being 'fixed' after the fact for the discs that remained 'in the wild' so to speak'.

In other words, the agreements fell through, but they worked out the specifics after the fact for what was already out, pulled the rest.... etc....
 
MusicMeister said:
Actually, I misspoke. I should have said, 'No discs were released without the licensing being 'fixed' after the fact for the discs that remained 'in the wild' so to speak'.

In other words, the agreements fell through, but they worked out the specifics after the fact for what was already out, pulled the rest.... etc....
Click to expand...

Whew! Thanks, MM
 
JoeChartreuse said:
Whew! Thanks, MM
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, I don't believe they have because they're one of the few companies I see being more or less 'stand up'... but only Kurt and his lawyers would know for sure.

Remember, I don't work for them... I just happen to know a lot about licensing and copyright... :D
 
Don't know about the cybersound suit but I came across something that would indicate that SC, Stellar, CB, Stingray, Priddis, Ace Karaoke and (?) are suing Tricerasoft on a Trademark issue? I hate those sites where you have to be a member to read anything other than the title. Anyone know what that one is about?
 
possumdog said:
Don't know about the cybersound suit but I came across something that would indicate that SC, Stellar, CB, Stingray, Priddis, Ace Karaoke and (?) are suing Tricerasoft on a Trademark issue? I hate those sites where you have to be a member to read anything other than the title. Anyone know what that one is about?
Click to expand...

It likely has to do with format shifting their discs with their software.
 
POSSUMDOG Asked "Don't know about the cybersound suit but I came across something that would indicate that SC, Stellar, CB, Stingray, Priddis, Ace Karaoke and (?) are suing Tricerasoft on a Trademark issue? I hate those sites where you have to be a member to read anything other than the title. Anyone know what that one is about? ".
I don't have much time tonight, but in (very) short form: We are not suing Tricerasoft, we are currently filing an objection with the Trademark office which has or is considering granting Tricerasoft a Trademark for "MP3+G". We are all considering it a "land grab" for something that we believe has been in the "public domain" for about 10 years. If they are granted the trademark (by a very overworked and underinformed) Trademark office, then anyone using the words "MP3+G" to describe their product would need to pay them a royalty if that is their objective. In our opinion, it would be like a manufacturer trying to get a trademark on "CD+G".

This is a simplified version of it - they are actually filing two different requests with the US Patent and Trademark Office, one of which has not yet been granted by the USPTO and will be coming up very soon for comments. We all missed the comment period on the first one that was granted and got into the "objection" phase. We all planned to comment vociferously on the second request they have. Ed, when I get the chance, I'll try to send you some direct info which you can share, but there is a flurry of activity right now and it's all changing (spent three hours on it today even ).

Although we were not one of the named parties in the Cybersound case (presumably because she knows we had 100% licensing for our products in direct compeition with hers), I also know the resolution of Jane Steven's Cybersound case (she lost). But that's another complicated and somewhat technical case, but basically she had no right to sue because she did not have standing in her claims.
 
The real truth!

truthteller said:
If thats the case - what legitimate purpose does this new format have? If you can only use it on the disc, why is there a need for SC to manufacture anything besides the traditional CDG? Oh wait! They realize up front that they can make more money!!!

SC is putting out a new format to make it easier for the KJ to transfer the file to a hard drive..........and they won't come after you for doing so, because you are paying them money for a format designed to break the law. Hello pot????
Click to expand...

Truthteller - I don't know about you, but we tested our discs on combo players that play CDG, DVD, VideoCD, MP3+G, JPG, etc. and they play fine. Also tested them on about 10 computers of all brands in our office using different playback software and they play fine! And you know something, when we remove the disc, there is not a single copy of any of the songs left behind. When we click on a file in the "My Recent Documents" icon, nothing plays. I.e., a perfectly legal product was PLAYED from the disc and when the disc was removed the music was not transferred.

And somehow, I believe that if the MP3+G format were really designed to "break the law" that we could not obtain licenses for the format. Perhaps as several posters (especially MusicMeister) have pointed out, you really need to come to terms with the fact that it is not Sound Choice that is doing anything illegal - we are not forcing any KJ to transfer it to his hard drive. Yes, we have been asked many times about OUR POSITION on the transfer of OUR CONTENT to a hard drive and I have been very consistent in stating that if you have an original Sound Choice product in a 1:1 ratio to the songs on your hard drive(s) we will not prosecute you. (Or as someone stated, we will chose to look the other way). Why? Because we recognize the inherent advantages of running your show from a computer. But Sound Choice is not the "bad guy" here. I have been very clear in stating that we can't grant you the right to format shift it because we do not control the composition rights to the song, only the recording and trademark rights. However, in other countries, they do have such rights, and since we sell our products on the world market, those who have paid for a format shift license (it's called a PRO-DUB license, for example, in the UK) ARE legally able to do what KJs here wish they could do. I have personally met with reps from PRS and have worked with them to create some of their Karaoke laws. It's easier there because they have a collective society which handles nearly all Music copyrights in the UK, unlike here in the US where there is not a collective society FOR SYNC AND KARAOKE RIGHTS. (Harry Fox DOES handle nearly all publishers works for mechanical rights). And we are and have been working for years to get additional rights for the use of Karaoke compositions. Take some time to educate yourself here: http://www.prsformusic.com/users/musicforproducts/Pages/ProDubLicence.aspx I'll give everyone the opening paragraph here: Like you, most songwriters, composers and musicians are small businesses, who more times than not earn very little from their creativity

Like you, songwriters, composers and musicians deserve to be paid for their work

If you are copying, burning or transferring their work from your vinyl, CD, MP3 or CD+G collection onto a digital format such as an MP3 player, flash drive or laptop for use in your professional or semi-professional working life, you will need to purchase a ProDub Licence

Australia has a similar law for "format shifting" for commercial use.

So, I have just stated several reasons why we are producing a legitimate and LEGAL product. As far as making MORE money, we are actually selling the sets of discs in this format for a much lower price per song than on CDG - as much as 45% lower! So that shoots that theory of yours out the window!

Now, why don't you "legitimize" yourself and tell us who you are and why you are not capable of being able to back up your spewings with any logic or factual support for your allegations? I have an strong hunch I know who you are and I bet Thunder does also.....But that is not really important. I think that after reading other posters comments here concerningn your posts that most would agree that you are the voice for all "THE UNINFORMED".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top