What's new
By:
Filters

GEM Series appears!

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeChartreuse said:
I thanked Rick's post. However, I only meant the part ABOVE the "FOS". No thanks for that.
Click to expand...

Yer just mad, because I called you out too. :sqlaugh:
 
JoeChartreuse said:
I love this forum, but I'm too old to get absorbed with cyberspace. Stuck in the real life frame....The sex is better here..:sqwink:
Click to expand...

We all have our vices -- enjoy yours... :)
 
Manobeer said:
Kurt...

I have asked this question about the GEM SERIES before but never received an answer(from you).


So you sell the Gem series in a set, and allow the customer to make a duplicate copy(in writing). So my question is...

Does the Artist(copyright holder) get credit(compensation) for both copies(the one sold and the duplicate you permit)?
Click to expand...

NO - the artist/publisher gets paid nothing for the copy that the "shifters" (for lack of a better word) make. That is why I consistently try to make the point that there are different rights holders in each unit of content (song) and each can allow or deny whatever they want (for their portion of ownership) if it is not specifically granted in the Copyright and Trademark laws - despite the speculation here by certain posters who simply refuse to acknowledge or understand this.

We are LICENSING the GEM series discs and allowing (for that portion of the rights which we control) the KJ Host/Venue to do a media shift (they don't have to do a format shift like in the CDG, since it's already in MP3G FORMAT) if it is in their interest to do so.

However, in the license, we make it clear (as I have stated all along, even with CDGs) that the "shifter" is still at risk for doing such a transfer because we do not control 100% of all the Intellectual Property Rights in the content. For example, the publishers still control the Composition Copyrights, but to date they have not made any moves to go after anyone for doing a format/media shift from CDG to Computer. Since this is allowed for NON- COMMERCIAL USE, it is our speculation/opinion that the risk that they will make a case out of it, provided the "shifter" is following the 1:1 concept, is minimal. If anyone read Chartbuster's disclaimer for using a download copied to a different device or disc in a Karaoke show (it was copied earlier in this thread) that is essentially what they are trying to say as well.

I hope that I answered your question clearly, but I will try to summarize again:

For all those that are format and/or media shifting content and thereby making a new copy, you ARE violating the rights of the various rights holders (song writer, publishers, record label/karaoke producer) unless you have something in writing specifically allowing you to make the media/format shift. And you are running the risk (no matter how great or small) that they might one day take legal action against you for doing so. Keeping to the 1:1 concept will minimize the risk that they would be awarded damages, but it still exists.

This is one reason why we are LICENSING the GEM series - we are providing you as much "protection" as possible doing it this way - you will have an original copy of a rights paid disc - if you were to use this in a show there is no question that you could not be sued by anyone for the use of that disc. And we are giving you permission in writing for doing ONE media shift to a different medium (a Computer for example), provided you keep the original copy in your possession (locked in a safe deposit box, under your bed, etc. ) and you never use it. But we are also not indemnifying you on behalf of the other rights holders who only got paid for the copy that we licensed to you NOT for the shifted copy that you create.

If you go to our website, you can find a copy of the license agreement (I won't give you a link here for fear of being accused of advertising).
 
Education is the Best Starting Point

darkpowrjd said:
By the way, you must excuse me for my passionate views about this, as I've been following this whole piracy debate with a number of mediums for some time.
Click to expand...

Then I recommend that if you would like to have your views taken more seriously you spend a good bit of time reading and understanding the copyright laws and trademark laws AND subsequent court cases where things have been further defined or narrowed. Until that time, if you do not want to add to the confusion which you so readily blame others for creating, I would suggest that you preface your remarks with "IN MY OPINION". And, if you WISH that someone would take a certain action (because it is YOUR wish) then also state that you "WISH that "so and so" would do "such and such" because in your OPINION the desired result which you BELIEVE would be the result will occur.
 
Sound Choice said:
Then I recommend that if you would like to have your views taken more seriously you spend a good bit of time reading and understanding the copyright laws and trademark laws AND subsequent court cases where things have been further defined or narrowed. Until that time, if you do not want to add to the confusion which you so readily blame others for creating, I would suggest that you preface your remarks with "IN MY OPINION". And, if you WISH that someone would take a certain action (because it is YOUR wish) then also state that you "WISH that "so and so" would do "such and such" because in your OPINION the desired result which you BELIEVE would be the result will occur.
Click to expand...


Still looking forward to you filing an action in NY Kurt... :)
 
Sound Choice said:
:

For all those that are format and/or media shifting content and thereby making a new copy, you ARE violating the rights of the various rights holders (song writer, publishers, record label/karaoke producer) unless you have something in writing specifically allowing you to make the media/format shift. And you are running the risk (no matter how great or small) that they might one day take legal action against you for doing so. Keeping to the 1:1 concept will minimize the risk that they would be awarded damages, but it still exists.
).
Click to expand...


A double thanks for that post, Kurt. It was a point I made in regard to ANY mfrs'. product, and had been argued extensively in other threads. Appreciate the help.
 
Bazza said:
It doesn't say you WILL be audited. Just that you agree that you CAN be audited. It also says it is for Sound Choice songs only by the way.

My take is that, since I just bought the entire set, why would they spend the time & trouble to audit me? The only reason I can think of is if they see MY serial number pop up somewhere else and want to verify the discs are still in my possession, or for stray Eagles songs I guess. Honestly, I will be very surprised if I get the audit call.
Click to expand...

Since it is a requirement that the legal licensee has both the original discs and a license, we are able to provide the legal licensee added protection against piracy of his set of discs. Suppose Bazza had an employee and a set of legal CDGs that he "shifted" to a computer and that employee rips him off by copying his hard drive and goes into business for himself. If that employee only changed a few songs, it might be difficult to prove that the employee ripped off Bazza's drive. And for Sound Choice to do anything, we would first make certain that Bazza had a legal set before we started chasing someone for copying his shifted content.

But, now with the new Blue and white logo MP3Gs that Sound Choice created and have licensed to Bazza, it takes the original discs, plus a license from us to be legal. So if the same employee rips of Bazza, all Bazza has to confirm is that that employee is now running the new logos and he can call and ask us if that employee is licensed and if not, then we both know immediately that the employee pirated the discs and can take legal action WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that he is not running 1:1 and does not have a license from us.

OR, if one of our investigators is in the field and notices a show running songs with the new logos, he knows that he has the right to approach the host and ask to see the Proof of license sticker on the system or chat up the host about his license. If the host refuses or is very evasive, it would send signals that might trigger an audit. Remember some of you here suggested that we do just that - go right up and ask the host "are you legal" - to which 100% of them would reply "yes of course" even though the majority would be lying. Now we can do that and know that we can ask further questions and a LEGAL host knows that it is in his interest to respond. And he will likely be glad that we are doing "checks" because, knowing that he is legal, he will also know that his pirate competitors won't be so lucky if we are doing investigations in his area.

There are many advantages to the Host/Licensee with the new GEM series beyond the obvious.
 
Bazza said:
But unless I am breaching the contract, whats the point of the audit in the first place? You could come up with all sorts of "what if" scenarios regarding the licensing agreement. I mean what if after five years they DEMAND all your discs back? I suppose they could, but to what end?
Click to expand...

Actually, as long as you finished paying for your license and were never in breach, we will renew for not more than $100 and not less than three years, so you already know the "worst case" scenario when entering into the agreement.

As Chip Staley seems to be pointing out with such paranoia, the avenues of escape are lessening and the noose will be drawing tighter and tighter for the pirates. But he is failing to point out that never before has there been such an affordable and quality solution being offered to "pirates" as we are presenting with the GEM Series license now.
 
c. staley said:
You don't have to be breaching anything. Just ask those that are 1:1 and have been sued like KJAthena or Good Time Karaoke... they didn't "breach" anything either did they?
Click to expand...

Get the FACTS before you continue spouting off about things you are trying to twist to bolster your own (incorrect) conclusions.

Yes they DID "breach" our rights. They did not have written permission to do the format and media shift. "1:1" does not automatically grant you permission to create the second or additional copies - even Joe Chartreuse is clear on that point. We (and several of the other major karaoke producers) are taking the position that we will not continue to pursue a legal suit against you if you can prove that you have an original, legally purchased CDG for each and every song on each and every system where you have created the format/media shifted content. If someone who does have legal content that they have shifted AND THEY WANT TO AVOID being named in a suit, then they can apply in advance to us for written permission (which would involve an audit and a license similar to the new GEM Series license).

In the meantime, even a "shifter" who does have 100% legal discs runs the risk of being named in a suit, but also knows that with not a lot of trouble they will be dropped from it (as far as Sound Choice content goes). But Chartbusters and Stellar Records are gearing up their own campaigns, so it behooves users of their content to work towards being legal with their songs as well.
 
Kurt:just to be clear and so there isn't further misinformation, is that $100 the total amount for the series/discs in one's possesion?

Also, if you later start producing new music in the mp3+g fomat, will these disks fall under your current license or will you have to sign a 'new' agreement?


Finally just for the sake of my own clairification. When I die, everything of value that I own will be sold, and the money gets split between my niece and nephew? Would the discs be part of my estate?


thank you for your time

-James
 
c. staley said:
Funny.... you should be asking KJAthena or Good Time Karaoke that.... They were both sued with no "proof" as you say.

And no, your sweeping statement of "If you're legal no worries" is pure bull. Ask KJAthena if they were legal or Good Time Karaoke if they were legal and they'll tell you "yes, we are." Did that prevent them from being sued? Nope.
.
Click to expand...

Umm, KJATHENA and Good Time Karaoke are one and the same. And since they have come out and openly stated that after all is said and done they understand why we named them and they are fully behind our actions.

So why do you feel that you have to cite their name in support of your rantings when they are not doing the same themselves?

And I don't know how much you have spent on Sound Choice products, but I would be willing to bet it was not enough to cover the 7 computerized systems that you used to run. Is all your protesting about "deflection"? (Although we do thank you for the product you did buy).

Do you hope to stir up enough support among other pirates so that if/when it's "your day in court" things will have changed in your favor? I suggest you contact your congressman if you want to effect such change.

Let's boil it down as simply as possible: If you do not have the rights to make or use a copy of someone else's intellectual property you are infringing their rights. Those who have content on a hard drive system/computer who don't even have an original copy of a CDG in their possession are undeniably infringers.
 
Proformance said:
From what instrument of law do you derive such a right to require this proof?

Where can I find this 1:1 standard in the law or in any previous Sound Choice purchase contract?
Click to expand...

There is not a "law" and none of the karaoke producers is stating there is one regarding the concept of 1:1. My statements here regarding the concept of 1:1 and what Sound Choice is allowing are meant to provide clarification to everyone, given all the BS and speculation flying around.

I have stated many times and consistently, that unless granted otherwise, all other rights are retained by the rights holders. In other words, if you can't find a law or if the producer/record label/publisher has not granted you a particular right in writing, you can't assume that you can do whatever you want to do with their property. The contrary is true! And again, for those who are confused, you don't "own" a CD or a CDG in it's entirety. You own the media (i.e., the "plastic"). So, yes, you can break and burn it, but you can't copy it because you don't own what you it is you are copying.

In regards to the GEM Series, you don't even own the plastic of the CD-ROM. The only thing you "own" are rights that we do spell out clearly in the license agreement. The license is intended to provide clarification as to what you can and can't do with what we are supplying you and it is also clear that we don't control all the rights in the song content so we can't grant you clearances for all that you want to do when it comes to media shifting.

You undertake the shift from the original media at your own risk, but we will not sue you for trademark infringement if you chose to do so.
 
Proformance said:
"Consumer" and "Home Use" are not legally interchangeable.

The "user" in "commercial use" is often not synonymous with the "owner" of the disc being played.

I can walk into any night club right now with any retail disc I own and hand it to the DJ to be played. If he plays it - any liability for "commercial use" passes to the club - not me. They are the user, they are the one accruing the commercial benefit.

If you truly believed that the "consumption" of your product was synonymous only with use in a private home - then you willingly violated both your own policy and the scope of your own license by targeting working DJs/KJs and commercial venues.

You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...


Huh????!! We are talking about making illegal copies of our intellectual property and format/media shifting, not the playing of original discs.
 
JoeChartreuse said:
Steve, please re-read my post, which was directed at freaking SOUND CHOICE.

They said you were 1:1 in their book, yet you have never been audited- So I asked THEM why that was. Got it? Not aimed at you.
Click to expand...

Hellooo Joe!! We are aware of many of Steve's DIRECT PURCHASES from us and he might have some other discs elsewhere. And Steve is aware that we are aware of his purchases. So, given all that I know that he has purchased (especially if he were so inclined, he could have easily obtained pirated copies), why would I go and spend money auditing someone I know for a fact has at least 250 of our discs, when there are so many others in his backyard who have none?

Why aren't you insisting I go audit Chip Staley, for example, when he has publicly stated in the past that he has run 7 computer based systems? Is it because he is also antagonistic towards Sound Choice so that you view him as one of your "buddies" in the "Anti-Sound Choice" camp? You are so virulently anti-Sound Choice you have tunnel vision; it's a good thing I don't. I would license you or Staley today if you were so inclined to license our product. We simply want to be paid for the use of our content - and the law says that we should also.

And yes, I know that you think the government should be policing this and you object to our investigative methods, blah, blah, blah, so don't waste time repeating yourself here, but you have not presented a better plan to combat piracy and get people to pay us and other producers, so until you have something positive to present to everyone, you also marginalize yourself.
 
Birdofsong said:
Looking forward to a balanced and respectful exchange of ideas and opinions among collegues.

Birdofsong
Click to expand...

BUT PLEASE - when comments written as a declarative statement are really OPINIONS and the poster has not done any research or when a comment is simply speculative, identify them as such. Writing IMHO would avoid confusing others who might be coming across these threads without even knowing who is behind them. (I think I am clearly not hiding who I am or who I represent, so I am very transparent to the public).

And I think it would take a lot of the divisiveness out of these threads. Someone does not necessarily have to defend an opinion, but it's when they are stated in such a fashion as to make people believe they are fact that those with opposing opinions or facts contradicting the poster's opinion seem to get highly emotional or defensive (myself included).

Quite frankly, I am being selfish - I would rather not spend so much time here trying to blunt negative OPINIONS about Sound Choice or IP Laws which run counter to the FACTS.

Kurt Slep, CEO Sound Choice
 
Jon Tuck said:
I have to give Schlepp credit for groundbreaking efforts. It is certainly true that mistakes would surely be be made along the way. However we finally find new measures to gain control.........................this is the hopes of the pioneer effort.
Click to expand...

So I would be interested to learn which "mistakes" you will allow yourselves and why, when you are not allowing our 1-2 "mistakes" (your words, not ours).

I am totally open to any good ideas which will help curb piracy, get producers paid for their products and end unfair competition for other legitimate KJs.

Why don't you moderate for Chip, JoeChartreuse, Diafel, SoftRick, Ed, Proformance, and the other 3-4 on here who continually "condemn" Sound Choice for helping the industry and yes, admittedly ourselves. Since they have nothing but criticism for our actions, they must have equally strong ideas about how to do it "right". However, before we have the aforementioned posters going off on a tangent saying "See Sound Choice admitted they are in it for themselves", note that we just spent a tremendous amount of time and money developing a product which has use for both legal "shifters" and pirates. If we were ONLY interested in helping ourselves, we would have just stuck with lawsuits and we would not have spent the time and money to introduce a product that is in the format you want and at a higher quality level than most of you have (especially those with pirated tracks) at a price that is affordable - even supplying financing.

But hurry, because in the absence of a "better solution" (and don't forget that there are external restrictions about what can be done by the music publishers) we are forced to continue our present path. Oh, and don't forget the OBVIOUS solution - EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE ANY PURCHASED original CDGs can always step up to the plate and buy them from the respective producer. I mean you can't possibly argue against that, can you?

Can someone amongst the "anti-Sound Choice" group convene all of those who are in that camp and have the debate amongst yourselves and come up with a better solution that solves all the problems that have been debated on the various threads involving Sound Choice. Don't forget that the sky is not the limit - the solutions must be commercially viable and possible given the constraints of the current publishing laws concerning Karaoke in the US.

How about reporting back in a month? I am totally serious here - I will listen to reasonable and commercially viable input.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top