Thunder Hag said:Wow, I stay amazed at the amount of effort you put in Chip...just to make a point.
Thunder Hag,
Believe me, it was a labor of love. (that cost less than $5. Money well spent, I might add).
Thunder Hag said:Wow, I stay amazed at the amount of effort you put in Chip...just to make a point.
KJSandman said:Joe... here's your answer: "Since you seem to need it stated: yes, each track we release is licensed at the time of its release."
c. staley said:Dear Mr. KJSandman,
I have a lovely bridge for sale too....
possumdog said:This is getting to be a bit like Soduko or CSI or something. Lots of different pieces to the puzzle but I'm not yet sure of which piece fits where--and it is hard to resist not trying to play. While the judgement against CB could indicate that they were eventually forced to obtain licensing for the songs so those on the list sold after that date are not in question, I think there is still more to it than a distributor selling products of other companies that turned out to be unlicensed.
Section 15 states that the compositions in question "have been recorded, reproduced, distributed, marketed, advertised, 'sampled' and sold without plaintiffs autohorization by the Blue Moon Defendants." Would it be incorrect to interpret this as the Blue Moon defendants were also RECORDING AND REPRODUCING themselves? Further down it says that they ask that there be no further "copies, facsimilies or duplicates" made by Blue Moon and it doesn't seem to just refer to the "samples" as it says these things are being SOLD.
So possibly it is a case of both distributing the unlicensed products of others as well as making/copying the products themselves?
JoeChartreuse said:Apparently not. I have read and printed the complaint to which Chip was kind enough to supply a link. Though a full listing of songs was not available, Gretchen Wilson's "All Jacked Up"- which is on the disc in question- was one of those what WERE included in the complaint as being unlicensed at the time.
KJSandman said:Mr. Staley,
Your offer of a bridge for sale without verification of said bridge's existence and current legal status is declined.
KJSandman said:Your insinuation of my gullibility is noted.
You are more than welcome.... truly.KJSandman said:Thanks for posting the information.
KJSandman said:May I inquire as to the sale date of your Chartbuster CD+G's? If you are not interested in divesting yourself of these items, I'm certain that if placed properly in the garage, they'll keep the dust off of the other CD+G's that are stored there.
Chartbusterette said:If you are referring to a Warner settlement, the licenses were granted ab initio following the settlement.
Chartbusterette said:If you are referring to a Warner settlement, the licenses were granted ab initio following the settlement.
c. staley said:I think you're confused, and I can see why. Joe, as well (because the suit against Loud is not misdirected). These two lawsuits are directly related. Here's the scenario as far as I can tell:
Chartbuster produced tracks without obtaining licensing. These tracks are distributed on discs with the Chartbuster label by Loud Karaoke. First, Warner/Chappell sues Chartbuster for producing the unlicensed tracks. Chartbuster and Warner/Chappell enter into a consent judgment (or agreed judgment, as stated) that states that Chartbuster will compensate Warner/Chappell for the infringement. In addition, the agreement includes an injunction for certain tracks. I believe at this point, Chartbuster is now able to continue producing the tracks that are not part of the injunction (probably those listed on Exhibit I of the Complaint against Loud Karaoke). However, Loud Karaoke has benefited from the distribution of all tracks, and perhaps continues to distribute Chartbuster tracks that were part of the injunction. So Loud Karaoke had no right to distribute any of the tracks before the settlement between Warner/Chappell and Chartbuster, and still has no right to distribute the tracks that were part of the injunction. They probably continued to do both. This second lawsuit is simply Warner/Chappell going after the 2nd infringer -- the distributor. They've already gotten the manufacturer.
Make sense?
JoeChartreuse said:Assuming that was the case, how do you know when I bought the disc?
JoeChartreuse said:Because your logo was attached to distributed tracks without permission, it's not legally there. Anyone showing a history of this in court will have any Trademark Infringement case invalidated. Too bad, as I had high hopes for your better plan...
Chartbusterette said:It doesn't matter when you purchased the disc. As I said, the licenses were granted ab initio.
That is not the case at all. Not only do we have the proper licensing for the underlying musical work(s), we also own the rights to our own creative work(s).
Proformance said:The cooperation of KJs is not something I think you can look forward to in the future.
Chartbusterette said:One need look no further than your avatar to know which side you come down on when it comes to piracy. Do you also presume to speak for the body politic? For every KJ? Your words above would seem to indicate that you think so.
We are what we are. If we've made mistakes, we've paid for them, in spades. Those mistakes do not justify stealing from us, and they never will.
Mantis1 said:Chip,
If every mfr out there was criminal it still would not forgive the fact that Mr 6 sytems (formerly) , has 3 fingers pointing back at himself every time he goes on his rants!!!
You are pissed because you can't get away it so why should they? Try focusing on your house and thanks for all the info!!!!
A place to debate everything and anything!