New SC Lawsuits Hit Ohio - CAVS & HD Sellers Named & Dan Sterns Raided By FBI

jokerswild said:
There's usually just two graphics that would need removed the intro where it shows and the outtro.... and no it's not nearly as complicated as going sector by sector...
Click to expand...

and sometimes in the middle the show the graphics so you would need to find those and black them out.
 
Wall Of Sound said:
After the Dan Stern (Bill Bene) siezed documents have been inventoried by the FBI, I hope they find every customer he ever sold to & begin to approach them. Buying & possessing stolen property isn't exactly legal.
Click to expand...

But the tracks are encoded with the Sound Choice trademark, making them appear legitimate. You'd have to prove that each and every customer knew it was unauthorized material because, buying bootlegs if you don't know they are bootlegs makes you a victim not a criminal.

They would first have to send a cease and desist letter notifying the buyers that it is a counterfeit product.
 
Proformance said:
But the tracks are encoded with the Sound Choice trademark, making them appear legitimate. You'd have to prove that each and every customer knew it was unauthorized material because, buying bootlegs if you don't know they are bootlegs makes you a victim not a criminal.

They would first have to send a cease and desist letter notifying the buyers that it is a counterfeit product.
Click to expand...

Cease & Desist would work for me in my stomping grounds!
 
Wall Of Sound said:
Cease & Desist would work for me in my stomping grounds!
Click to expand...

Then what?
You have to follow this out to it's logical conclusion. It's simply not possible to the follow-up on every individual purchaser to find out if they are in fact using these copies.

Suing people left and right or trying to make examples of people back-fired quite dramatically on the RIAA, and that wouldn't turn out any better for SC either. All of these "examples" will be forgotten in short order.

The solution to file-sharing turned out to be better customer service in the form of pay-per-download sale of singles. Consumers have never appreciated the music industry trying to jam $18 albums with one good song down their throat and file-sharing was the ultimate expression of that disgust. The success of iTunes and Napster's pay site, etc. prove without a doubt that for the most part people are willing to pay for music and respect copyrights.

SC is guilty of the exact same product arrogance - and in my opinion are the ultimate creators of the position in which they they find themself. No sympathy for the pirates - but, ultimately what I see is SC suing people for meeting a demand they arrogantly ignored. HAd their distribution priorities been in order to begin with they wouldn't be where they are now.
 
Proformance said:
Then what?
You have to follow this out to it's logical conclusion. It's simply not possible to the follow-up on every individual purchaser to find out if they are in fact using these copies.

Suing people left and right or trying to make examples of people back-fired quite dramatically on the RIAA, and that wouldn't turn out any better for SC either. All of these "examples" will be forgotten in short order.
Click to expand...

Well the RIAA did collect over 100 million dollars.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...helping-in-not-1-but-3-file-sharing-cases.ars
 
Every KJ that has been drawing breath for 20 years already knows that purchasing a hard drive without the disc means it is a bootlegged product so there is no victim other than the Karaoke manus who were ripped off and the legit KJs that are competing against them for business!

The only KJs who could possibly be called victims would be the ones who were not computer savy and never went online, of course they wouldn't be the ones purchasing the loaded hard drives either!
 
Proformance said:
Then what?
The solution to file-sharing turned out to be better customer service in the form of pay-per-download sale of singles. Consumers have never appreciated the music industry trying to jam $18 albums with one good song down their throat and file-sharing was the ultimate expression of that disgust. The success of iTunes and Napster's pay site, etc. prove without a doubt that for the most part people are willing to pay for music and respect copyrights.
.
Click to expand...

I see a difference between a consumer not wanting to buy an entire album for just one song and a pirate who wants to offer EVERY song. It would seem the service SC wasn't providing them was that they weren't giving their music away for free. Seems that many a buccaneer has been proud to have "every Sound Choice ever made" so they weren't stealing songs because they couldn't get just the ones they wanted, they were stealing songs because they wanted them all for nothing.

What is SC to do? Just start offering downloads and hope that all of us breaking the licensing laws en masse will make a change in those laws? Not sure what to do about that failure on their part.

Looks like all the manufacturers will have to put their "trademark" on every screen like the TV networks do.
 
I might add on the subject of selective purchase, at one time Sound Choice was offering custom disc (er... that means you picked the songs that went on the disc) I knoiw because I have several of them myself! So Sound Choice was fulfilling that need as well, and there goes that part of your argument!
 
Thunder said:
I might add on the subject of selective purchase, at one time Sound Choice was offering custom disc (er... that means you picked the songs that went on the disc) I knoiw because I have several of them myself! So Sound Choice was fulfilling that need as well, and there goes that part of your argument!
Click to expand...

At one point that system cost you $5/track..... which is why it never worked as intended.
 
Yes that is what I was paying and it was working just fine for me!

I could pick 10 to 15 songs I needed to get without repeating songs I already had without purchasing 10 or 15 disc, which as it turns out was a lot cheaper than filling my selection with more repeats!

The way I looked at it was I need this song and I can get it for $5 or I can get it for $27.95 or $24.95 or $22.95 depending on what SC was selling for that year or I could go the 6X6 route and get the songs for $17.00 each. When I looked at it logically it just made sense to me, but of course I am not an educated man so I could have been wrong!
 
Thunder said:
Yes that is what I was paying and it was working just fine for me!

I could pick 10 to 15 songs I needed to get without repeating songs I already had without purchasing 10 or 15 disc, which as it turns out was a lot cheaper than filling my selection with more repeats!

The way I looked at it was I need this song and I can get it for $5 or I can get it for $27.95 or $24.95 or $22.95 depending on what SC was selling for that year or I could go the 6X6 route and get the songs for $17.00 each. When I looked at it logically it just made sense to me, but of course I am not an educated man so I could have been wrong!
Click to expand...

I understand your logic... however for the average host $5/song is outrageous no matter who the manu is.... and that's why it failed.
 
I guess getting my start when songs were $5.90 each even when you purchased a whole disc made it seem that it wasn't such a bad deal!
 
What the RIAA won in settlements and judgements is leverage - they still have to find a way to turn that into actual money. Winning and collecting are not the same thing.

Also, the RIAA has laragely abaondoned the practice because - those "awards" are dwarfed by the lost revenue in record sales brought on by consumer boycotts and cancelled orders which followed their campaign.

No, every KJ is not informed about bootlegs or copyrights. In fact, it is quite stunning how many people are completely ignorant on the subject. Like the RIAA, should SC start chasing individual buyers ity is more than likely they too will be suing the grandmother's of uniformed teenage DJs and KJs.

A karaoke track purchased online today costs about $1.98 - well below the "custom" $5 tracks SC put on it's discs. I also reject the claim by SC that producing these tracks is so prohibitively expensive. The production cost is minor - but, the cost of using an outdated distribution model is tediously high.
 
Proformance said:
No, every KJ is not informed about bootlegs or copyrights. In fact, it is quite stunning how many people are completely ignorant on the subject. Like the RIAA, should SC start chasing individual buyers ity is more than likely they too will be suing the grandmother's of uniformed teenage DJs and KJs.
Click to expand...

I assure you that MOST EVERY KJ & VENUE in my area has been informed!:sqlaugh::sqlaugh::sqlaugh:
 
Wall Of Sound said:
I assure you that MOST EVERY KJ & VENUE in my area has been informed!:sqlaugh::sqlaugh::sqlaugh:
Click to expand...

Being informed and admiting it are two different things. I bet you that if they get into a tangle with SC, informed or not, they'll plead ignorance.
 
Proformance said:
What the RIAA won in settlements and judgements is leverage - they still have to find a way to turn that into actual money. Winning and collecting are not the same thing.

Also, the RIAA has laragely abaondoned the practice because - those "awards" are dwarfed by the lost revenue in record sales brought on by consumer boycotts and cancelled orders which followed their campaign.

No, every KJ is not informed about bootlegs or copyrights. In fact, it is quite stunning how many people are completely ignorant on the subject. Like the RIAA, should SC start chasing individual buyers ity is more than likely they too will be suing the grandmother's of uniformed teenage DJs and KJs.

A karaoke track purchased online today costs about $1.98 - well below the "custom" $5 tracks SC put on it's discs. I also reject the claim by SC that producing these tracks is so prohibitively expensive. The production cost is minor - but, the cost of using an outdated distribution model is tediously high.
Click to expand...

Yes the cost of production is minor, unless you are actually using musicians to play the song you are recording then that cost goes up just a little, of course if you are paying the fees to the copyright holders it would probably go up a little more, then of course if you were doing 100,000 releases the cost would be pretty low, but if you were only doing 10,000 copies the cost would probably go right back up!

Of course if you were producing your disc from the music already produced by another company, not paying any copyright fees and selling them online with a disclaimer that they are for HOME use only, then I would say that $1.98 per file would be way overpriced!
 
I was happy paying the $5 price for the custom CDG, plus the shipping. I bought a bunch. I am SO pissed they took that away. There so many songs that only SC put out that I want, and now cannot have unless I play the eBay/craigslist hunting game, which always ends up being WAY too expensive. :sqmad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top