LoudKaraoke.com sued by publisher

[JoeChartreuse]

Diafel....I understand what you are saying and happen to agree if that is the reason I would just say so. I do not know what the reason is but that was the first thing that came to mind....there may be other reason(s) I just think sometimes we should put ourselves in the other persons shoes and ask why they may be responding in a certain way.
Just for a moment think about what the responses would be if they were to respond with "sorry but our attorneys have advised us not to answer that question"...based upon other responses I think they would have been bruttal.

Athena, I understand that they may get some negativity from claiming that attorneys may have asked them not to respond, but is this way better?
Again, regard to obtaining information, my frustration really isn't aimed at any one mfr., but all of them. I wish there was at leat ONE U.S. manufacturer out there that is legal trouble free, and willing to share.

You must understand that as long as any mfr. is having legal problems there is no way I can accept their interpretation of legality as fact. Also, one must keep in mind that though KJs and mfrs. are both in the Karaoke business, we have very different goals.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

1) That document didn't include an Exhibit I - could you please post the link so I can see the titles you are referring to? I'll go through them line by line and let you know where the licensing stands for now.




2) Not necessarily - it would depend on the settlement terms.



3) I said "fell out," not "fell through." To be clearer, it was more a function of the repercussions of that decision.



4) As I said, I will inform the forum when we've reached a decision on this.

1) It's there. If you supply an e-mail address that you will respond to, I can send a copy- though since it exists, I'm QUITE sure you have a copy someplace. I might also add that if you would take the time to speak to me on the phone, more could be accomplished in a much shorter time. I HAVE called several times, and HAVE left requests for call back on your extension. It would be helpful.

Anyway here is a list of 9 songs from that list that I asked about in a previous post.


2) Some songs ( about 180+) were part of the permanent injunction to which Chip posted a link. Those tracks could never be licensed, and the injunction included the destruction of the masters for those tracks.

Unfortunately, these unlicensed tracks are still in circulation.

A few include: "He Wasn't Man Enough For Me" - CB40063

"Say My Name" - CBSP3 & CB40063

"Get The Party Started" - CBSP4

"The Way You Love Me" - CBSP6

"Born To Fly" - CBSP6

"I Hope You Dance" - CBSP7

"One Sweet Day" - CB40017

"Just A Woman" (AKA When You Love Me) - CB20562

"Break It To Me Gently" - CB20225

Where do those discs stand?


2) Are you saying that this Permanent Injunction has been lifted?


3) No comment


4) Actually, this is the first comment in regard to providing licensing documentation to KJs that you have made.


Another bit of confusion arises: You stated in post #84 on page 13 that all has reached conclusion, and you now have strong bonds with your publishers. However, above you state that if you have the list you will go over it one by one to see how the licensing stands for now?

Please keep in mind that I am aware that I am asking difficult questions, but I am not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to run a business, and to do that properly, I need all the factual information that I am able to acquire ABOUT said business.

 

[KjAthena]

well Joe just consider for a monement that what you are wanting most likley doesnt exist...I dont think there is a exsisting perfect Manu anymore than there is an exsisting perfect person...behind the Manus are people with all the strenghts and weaknesses that are human. We must accept others as we want to be accepted imperfect as we all are ; )

 

[Chartbusterette]

1) It's there.

Well, actually, no it isn't. That link leads to a three-page summary of a Sony/ATV complaint, no exhibit evident. I'd prefer that you publicly post the link so that everyone can understand what we are talking about.

I'm QUITE sure you have a copy someplace.

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I want to make absolutely sure we are talking about the same document. There seems to be some confusion already about what the document mentioned above is and does.

2) Some songs ( about 180+) were part of the permanent injunction to which Chip posted a link. Those tracks could never be licensed, and the injunction included the destruction of the masters for those tracks.

Actually, neither of those statements are even partially true. Go back and read the document again.

I'll summarize: Part 3 - "Defendants...shall be and hereby are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiff's rights under federal or state law in the copyrighted musical compositions set forth in Exhibit 1 to the complaint and in any other musical composition...that is owned or controlled by the Plaintiff...except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of Plaintiff." (emphasis mine)

Firstly, the injunction enjoins against rights infringement (not lawful, licensed exploitation), which is already of course covered under copyright law, and secondly it provides for making whole under a lawful license, which we have. The "permanent" word that everyone seems so hung up on is ephemeral under the wording of the very document being flogged here.

Thirdly, there's no mention of destroying masters. The document reads "Defendants also shall destroy all copies of any product or tangible good..." This applies to product, obviously.

Unfortunately, these unlicensed tracks are still in circulation.

What matters to me is if any unlicensed track is still in production. Hence my request for the list.

2) Are you saying that this Permanent Injunction has been lifted?

I'm telling you and everyone else that we have valid current licenses for every track we release. This "permanent injunction" as explained above is no longer applicable. I haven't seen the song list, but I'm fairly certain that not all of the songs that are on the list are licensable at this time, and that the vast majority are licensable at this time. I will do you the service of indicating which is which when I can see the Exhibit.

4) Actually, this is the first comment in regard to providing licensing documentation to KJs that you have made.

From post #132: "One of the ideas that we're discussing is whether or not it would be possible to post updated lists of licensed songs, or even reveal the contracts themselves. There are some tricky legal and contractual angles to it, not least of which is our MFN agreements."

Another bit of confusion arises: You stated in post #84 on page 13 that all has reached conclusion, and you now have strong bonds with your publishers. However, above you state that if you have the list you will go over it one by one to see how the licensing stands for now?

Well, yes - licensing is a fluid thing for any individual song. While we have solid agreements with publishers both large and small, individual songs change hands constantly. One year a tune may be in the hands of Sony, and the next it might be Warner-Chappell. Songwriters move their properties around sometimes, and occasionally one publisher will sell a brace of rights to another to consolidate libraries for exploitation, or any number of reasons. Keeping up with who owns what is a major part of what our licensing director does.

Please keep in mind that I am aware that I am asking difficult questions, but I am not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to run a business, and to do that properly, I need all the factual information that I am able to acquire ABOUT said business.

We understand and appreciate that. We also appreciate your civil tone and discourse.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

well Joe just consider for a monement that what you are wanting most likley doesnt exist...I dont think there is a exsisting perfect Manu anymore than there is an exsisting perfect person...behind the Manus are people with all the strenghts and weaknesses that are human. We must accept others as we want to be accepted imperfect as we all are ; )

Agreed, Athena. One can wish, though.... :winkpill::yespill:

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Well, actually, no it isn't. That link leads to a three-page summary of a Sony/ATV complaint, no exhibit evident. I'd prefer that you publicly post the link so that everyone can understand what we are talking about.

I thought the link was on this thread, and will have to look again. I am again stating that unless there is an organizational problem YOU HAVE THE LIST, since you have a copy of the injunction- you would HAVE to. I also have a copy of the PDF in my PC- is that postable? If not, please recall that I ASKED you for an e-mail address from which you will respond, and I will send it to you, and you can paste it here- I'm not sure I know how.

However, I DID give you a list of 9 songs that were included, and await your response.



Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I want to make absolutely sure we are talking about the same document. There seems to be some confusion already about what the document mentioned above is and does.



Actually, neither of those statements are even partially true. Go back and read the document again.

I'll summarize: Part 3 - "Defendants...shall be and hereby are PERMANENTLY ENJOINEDfrom directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiff's rights under federal or state law in the copyrighted musical compositions set forth in Exhibit 1 to the complaint and in any other musical composition...that is owned or controlled by the Plaintiff...except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of Plaintiff." (emphasis mine)

Firstly, the injunction enjoins against rights infringement (not lawful, licensed exploitation), which is already of course covered under copyright law, and secondly it provides for making whole under a lawful license, which we have. The "permanent" word that everyone seems so hung up on is ephemeral under the wording of the very document being flogged here.

Thirdly, there's no mention of destroying masters. The document reads "Defendants also shall destroy all copies of any product or tangible good..." This applies to product, obviously. ...and, it would seem, the masters- as they are "any product or tangible good..." The statements seem at least partially true.



What matters to me is if any unlicensed track is still in production. Hence my request for the list.



I'm telling you and everyone else that we have valid current licenses for every track we release. This "permanent injunction" as explained above is no longer applicable. I haven't seen the song list, but I'm fairly certain that not all songs on the list are licenseable at this time, and that the vast majority are licensable at this time. I will do you the service of indicating which is which when I can see the Exhibit.


1) I have to admit that I'm troubled by what seems to be your lack of knowledge in regard to the injunction and the list of songs to which it directly refers. How can one quote the injunction, yet not ever have seen the list of songs that the injunction was against? In other words, how is it possible that you don't have the list and don't know what is on it? You have to know, because you agreed to stop producing them...??


2) If some of the songs may not be licenseable at this time, wouldn't that mean that they are still unlicensed ( yet in circulation)? Twice, I have listed 9 songs from the list, and have asked the status of those nine songs BECAUSE I OWN THOSE DISCS and I want to know their licensing status for business purposes. Please reply.




From post #132: "One of the ideas that we're discussing is whether or not it would be possible to post updated lists of licensed songs, or even reveal the contracts themselves. There are some tricky legal and contractual angles to it, not least of which is our MFN agreements."

My last request wasn't for such a list. I realize how difficult that type of list may be, and have come up with something very simple. I requested licensing documentation only for the tracks on any specific disc you sell. In other words, if you sell a disc with 15 tracks, include the documentation for just those 15 tracks with the disc. I can't think of a single reason this couldn't be done.



Well, yes - licensing is a fluid thing for any individual song. While we have solid agreements with publishers both large and small, individual songs change hands constantly. One year a tune may be in the hands of Sony, and the next it might be Warner-Chappell. Songwriters move their properties around sometimes, and occasionally one publisher will sell a brace of rights to another to consolidate libraries for exploitation, or any number of reasons. Keeping up with who owns what is a major part of what our licensing director does.



We understand and appreciate that. We also appreciate your civil tone and discourse.

CB, I appreciate both the time and energy that you put into answering my questions, as well as your understanding of my motives, which are strictly business..

 

[c. staley]

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Loneavenger]

The manufacturers just want you to pay for their music that you're using, instead of stealing it. And due to anger over them taking these actions to protect themselves we see it fit to pick apart their business and try to find legal weaknesses? The fact of the matter is without the manufacturers making the music, we have no business whatsoever. Just saying this all seems a bit ridiculous to me , now back to your regularly scheduled " Debates ".

 

[djkjwhatj]

The manufacturers just want you to pay for their music that you're using, instead of stealing it. And due to anger over them taking these actions to protect themselves we see it fit to pick apart their business and try to find legal weaknesses? The fact of the matter is without the manufacturers making the music, we have no business whatsoever. Just saying this all seems a bit ridiculous to me , now back to your regularly scheduled " Debates ".

This entire thread isn't about digital piracy though. I'm sure I speak for everyone on this board that there is absolutely no problem whatsoever with purchasing music that's LEGAL, but when the manufacturers put out music that isn't legal and their entire downstream (distributors, dealers, retailers, KJ's) receive lawsuits that ruin businesses, I think we have a right to nit pick at the manufacturers that are supporting our businesses especially if some of them get off relatively easy because of their special direct relationships with the publishers.

By no means do I want to scare the manufacturers off the board as their communication with us is what is vital to all our businesses, but the truth about the entire industry just needs be brought out into the open for everyone to see.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Why am I not surprised?

At? What'd I miss?

 

[c. staley]

well Joe just consider for a monement that what you are wanting most likley doesnt exist...I dont think there is a exsisting perfect Manu anymore than there is an exsisting perfect person...behind the Manus are people with all the strenghts and weaknesses that are human. We must accept others as we want to be accepted imperfect as we all are ; )

Athena, you seem so willing to make excuses for and accept "imperfect" actions that comes from a Manufacturer (even a collosal amount of over $3,000,000 in Judgments for infringement). What exactly would they have to do to be less than magical in your eyes? Why are you so unwilling to hold them to the same standards that you hold the pirates?

Dishonesty is dishonesty. It isn't any cleaner or prettier coming from a manufacturer than it is coming from Bubba running Karaoke off a bootlegged hard drive at the corner bar for beer money. As a matter of fact, I think manufacturers should be held to an even higher standard, especially when they have the expectation of everyone else dealing with them fairly and honestly with their products. Maybe the difference for you is that whether the manufacturers stay legal or not, they're not trying to take your gigs like Bubba is. So is it okay because they're not stealing directly from you?

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Would REALLY like and answer regarding the licensing of the nine songs on the discs that I own that are on the list. Licensed or not?

 

[Guest]

Would REALLY like and answer regarding the licensing of the nine songs on the discs that I own that are on the list. Licensed or not?

http://newksco.got.net/RadianceAndChocolate/32 Jeopardy (Think Music).mp3

 

[KjAthena]

Athena, you seem so willing to make excuses for and accept "imperfect" actions that comes from a Manufacturer (even a collosal amount of over $3,000,000 in Judgments for infringement). What exactly would they have to do to be less than magical in your eyes? Why are you so unwilling to hold them to the same standards that you hold the pirates?

Chip the manus are not magical in my eyes....it is my opinion that they are trying to operate in a legal manner....I do not expect perfection from anyone

Dishonesty is dishonesty. It isn't any cleaner or prettier coming from a manufacturer than it is coming from Bubba running Karaoke off a bootlegged hard drive at the corner bar for beer money. As a matter of fact, I think manufacturers should be held to an even higher standard, especially when they have the expectation of everyone else dealing with them fairly and honestly with their products. Maybe the difference for you is that whether the manufacturers stay legal or not, they're not trying to take your gigs like Bubba is. So is it okay because they're not stealing directly from you?

Yes I think you may have hit the nail on the head....I take the piracy issue personally...the pirates in my area have taken money right out of my pocket and food off my table. In the situations when the manus have not followed the letter of the law I support those that have been infringed on to recover from them with the same conviction I support the manus recovering from the pirates in my area.

Intention plays a big part in my feelings...I feel the manus intend to do things legally....I know the HD seller/pirates in my area intend to steal...so it becomes a integrity issue to me.In the begining here we had "pirate KJ's" that were truley ignorant that what they were doing was wrong. Several closed shop and disappered including a very good freind (I had tried to explain that it was illegal but many other people and print info had her convinced otherwise)others had a "oh Sh*t" moment and removed all illegal songs and started to rebuild before they were caught, I can not say I do not feel a bit of empathy for them

As I tell everyone who will listen.......If you are legal request an audit...if you are not get legal or get out before you are caught. I have no empathy left for those that know they are doing wrong and continue to do so

 

[01erniemac]

Hello everyone!

I just learned yesterday that my motion to dismiss the Sound Choice Lawsuit against me here in Arizona was granted in Federal Court on 11-17-10. We are going to have a big party. I CAN TALK FREELY ONCE AGAIN! wiredforsound.1@juno.com

 

[Diafel]

Hello everyone!

I just learned yesterday that my motion to dismiss the Sound Choice Lawsuit against me here in Arizona was granted in Federal Court on 11-17-10. We are going to have a big party. I CAN TALK FREELY ONCE AGAIN! wiredforsound.1@juno.com

Congrats! Perhaps you can start another thread and tell us about it. Very exciting news!

 

[KjAthena]

erniemac1 I may be wrong but from what I remember you were settling with SC...is this why the suit was dismissed ? I think you also siad you could write a book about the experiance....please share details.

 

[Diafel]

erniemac1 I may be wrong but from what I remember you were settling with SC...is this why the suit was dismissed ? I think you also siad you could write a book about the experiance....please share details.

But let's not hijack this thread. Let's start another...

 

[KjAthena]

oops I agree time for a new thread

 

[rumbolt]

I did notice how few "proud cheerleaders" have posted in this thread..... Where have they gone? Where is the support from all the "certified and vetted" and "legit and legal" karaoke customers?....

You can lament that they are now quieter than before but you have to admit that it's all been based on their own attitudes backfiring in the face of their exposed dishonesty.

I am still here sitting enjoying the show with my big bag of butter coated popcorn. Could you pass the salt , please.