Outcome of Florida SC lawsuits?

[jokerswild]

How about we both do each other a favor and not add extra words to what is written by another person? Especially inside a "quote" that looks like it came from me.

I don't think it looks like it came from you.... further I don't find anything inflammatory about it... BOTH sides of the argument have valid and idiotic points of view depending on what side of the screen you are on.

I don't think anything malicious was intended by the editorializing of your original post by another member in this particular case.

However, it is being discussed in the Mod Den.

 

[VJ Justin Allen]

I do think in this case adding the extra wording does not change the original statement other than to make it "choose sides". I specifically wrote it the way I did so that it would be applicable to everyone...not just one side or another.

 

[jokerswild]

I do think in this case adding the extra wording does not change the original statement other than to make it "choose sides". I specifically wrote it the way I did so that it would be applicable to everyone...not just one side or another.

Let's examine this......

Here's you're original quote:

At some point you just have to step back, smile, and wonder about the absolute idiocy of some statements made on this site...and really really hope that these people don't actually believe in what they are saying but are just looking to present opposing points of view.

Now here is the editorialized version: (note the edit is in Red indicating that it is an addition to the original comment) Also as I read it, it doesn't really change the meaning of the original.... at least not in my mind.... in fact it now would point fingers at both sides.

Originally Posted by VJ Justin Allen
At some point you just have to step back, smile, and wonder about the absolute idiocy of some statements made on this site, from people on BOTH sides of the argument ...and really really hope that these people don't actually believe in what they are saying but are just looking to present opposing points of view.

I just don't see this as malicous or really even changing the original comment unless of course you meant the side you are against is the only side with idiotic points of view... is that it?

 

[Guest]

Justin,

Everyone does this and either highlights or colors the changes made or puts in the comment (fixed that for you), it is a common practice here!

 

[Guest]

And a real plus would be if you had an understanding as to what actually happened (like with the Eagles disc) but even then the facts and truth wouldn't make a bit of difference to anyone, and there were other disc done while permission was pending for a song or was withdrawn after the production was done and the disc distributed, Sound Choice isn't the only company that has had to deal with this as every single legit manu has had to pull disc or songs from disc from Pioneer, Chartbuster, Sound Choice, Music Maestro, just to name the major players from the past!

OK, let's dissect this...

and there were other disc done while permission was pending for a song or was withdrawn

Pending permission ... hmmmmm, means that the permission was not quite there which basically means that something wasn't signed that needed to be signed to grant the rights.

So, did they have the rights? Well ... if permission was pending then they didn't have the rights.

Now let's further analyze the word withdrawn. OK, well, maybe they had permission and maybe everything was signed by the artist said, "Nah". OK, in that case they do have the right to go to production and sell it but not in the pending situation.

So, basically, in the pending situation they were pirating.

 

[VJ Justin Allen]

I just don't see this as malicous or really even changing the original comment unless of course you meant the side you are against is the only side with idiotic points of view... is that it?

So much for you being an unbiased forum moderator.

 

[VJ Justin Allen]

Justin,

Everyone does this and either highlights or colors the changes made or puts in the comment (fixed that for you), it is a common practice here!

Thanks Thunder.

 

[DJMN]

So much for you being an unbiased forum moderator.

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I'm glad I caught this post. BWAH HA HA HA!

OK...I hope this isnt the only comedy left in this week. Because you are hilarious.

 

[jokerswild]

So much for you being an unbiased forum moderator.

I'm sorry you feel that way.... I just don't see his added comments as either offensive, malicious or in anyway ment as a degragation to the original intent of the quoted post. In fact I see it as actually clarifing the statement assumeing that it was not originally targeted at those that oppose or have the view point that SC is acting out of line or whatever reason a person may have for believing that they are not acting in the best interest of the karaoke industry as a whole......

I think however, we can all agree that it is not SC job to rescue the legal host from the evil clutches of piracy..... it is their job to protect their vested interests however and if these law suits gain them the moneys that is rightfully theirs but, piracy continues so be it, if it knocks out just one pirate fantastic!

 

[Guest]

Let's see . . .

TommyO posted this . . .

Ding, ding, ding ... we have a winner! Yes, in that light, SC are pirates themselves.

Which is correct in a technical sense.

Which you QUOTED and posted a reply of:

At some point you just have to step back, smile, and wonder about the absolute idiocy of some statements made on this site...and really really hope that these people don't actually believe in what they are saying but are just looking to present opposing points of view.

Hmm. Surely you weren't implying TommyO is an idiot? Didn't think so . . .

I added some verbiage - in bold, red, italicized text to make it clear that it was NOT original - to make the following points.

a) the implications of the post as originally written weren't quite fair to Tommy or others who realize that SC was indeed penalized in the past for playing "fast and loose" with the rules.

b) there's a great deal of stupidity and sillines surrounding the Sound Choice lawsuits, along with jumping to conclusions and an unwillingness to recognize unpleasant truths.

Then to make absolutely clear to YOU that this wasn't a slam against you I added:

Fixed that for ya . . . :sqwink::sqcool:

Note the winky smiley? Note the "cool" smiley? To which you replied:

How about we both do each other a favor and not add extra words to what is written by another person? Especially inside a "quote" that looks like it came from me.

Hmm. It appears to me that the ONLY reason to take offense at what I had done was because your original intent was to call Tommy an idiot. Was it?

. . . and to those wondering whose "side" I'm on, the answer's simple. MINE. :sqwink: <------ THAT'S A SMILEY JUSTIN!!!!

 

[Lone Wolf]

OK, let's dissect this...



Pending permission ... hmmmmm, means that the permission was not quite there which basically means that something wasn't signed that needed to be signed to grant the rights.

So, did they have the rights? Well ... if permission was pending then they didn't have the rights.

Now let's further analyze the word withdrawn. OK, well, maybe they had permission and maybe everything was signed by the artist said, "Nah". OK, in that case they do have the right to go to production and sell it but not in the pending situation.

So, basically, in the pending situation they were pirating.

I guess it all depends on who you are and where your at. If they were given verbal permission to go and produce the songs they did so on the premise that written permission was coming and so the wanted to get a jump on the game and produced and sold them, then whoever decided they really didn't want their stuff in karaoke. I think this happens a lot in other areas not just music/karaoke.

 

[Guest]

I guess it all depends on who you are and where your at. If they were given verbal permission to go and produce the songs they did so on the premise that written permission was coming and so the wanted to get a jump on the game and produced and sold them, then whoever decided they really didn't want their stuff in karaoke. I think this happens a lot in other areas not just music/karaoke.

In some states "verbal permission" or a verbal contract is valid. Maryland is one of them. However, we are dealing with a federal law here and, even though the IRS recognizes that a contract for contractual employee purposes can be a verbal agreement, the concept is not uniform through federal law therefore, if I were in SC's shoes, I would have waited till the paperwork was completed and signed before producing the karaoke tracks.

I will agree that "pending permission" is a common business practice in the music industry; however, that does not make it right and it has also caused problems in the past in regard to copyright issues.

By producing the tracks before complete permission was given placed SC in the precarious pirate position.

 

[Guest]

Moonrider, thank you. That has earned you rep points through me and that is more valuable than thanks. :sqwink:

Justin, you need to look at things just a little more objectively. As Moonrider pointed out, SC is technically pirating the karaoke tracks if they have not secured permission from the artist. Pending permission is not permission.

I can understand that if you have a great thing in your hand that will make you lots of money you'll want to get that great thing on the streets as quickly as possible; however, if the rights to produce that great thing belongs to someone else then you need to wait till they say that you can in a verifiable way. In the United States, the best way to verify a person's permission is through a signature. Until that is done, if you put that thing on the street then you are absolutely wrong.

 

[Guest]

Tommy,

Another point on the subject is that a copyright holder can give permission, they can also withdraw it at anytime as well!

That doesn't affect the product that has already been sold, but it does stop someone from selling anymore! Thus you end up with disc that have a song removed or changed!

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Has SC been found guilty ? By a court?

One could argue that no pirates are REALLY pirates if they settle.

In the eyes of the law, have they been found guilty if they settle?

Just askin.

Exactly. So why is it, although NO ONE has been found guilty in a court of law in regard to the SC witch hunts, people are still calling those named pirates? Still want to tell me me no innocent name has been tarnished in this mess?

 

[JoeChartreuse]

And a real plus would be if you had an understanding as to what actually happened (like with the Eagles disc) but even then the facts and truth wouldn't make a bit of difference to anyone, and there were other disc done while permission was pending for a song or was withdrawn after the production was done and the disc distributed,

Tough to get worked up when you post the funny stuff. I know you like to skip what you don't like, but I hope others click on this link:

http://dkusa.com/pdf/SC_Fed_Complaint.pdf

If these charges are correct, SC has produced music without EVER asking permission, . Not just an "oops", but what seems to be on purpose, if read starting from pg 21 on. A long history per these charges...

 

[JoeChartreuse]

I guess it all depends on who you are and where your at. If they were given verbal permission to go and produce the songs they did so on the premise that written permission was coming and so the wanted to get a jump on the game and produced and sold them, then whoever decided they really didn't want their stuff in karaoke. I think this happens a lot in other areas not just music/karaoke.

Maybe, but the bottom line is that verbal permission isn't legal permission. SC went ahead without legal permission, instead of waiting for it.

For instance, running a show based on downloads in the U.S. may be legal someday-but it isn't YET. Is it ok to start now?

 

[jclaydon]

Tough to get worked up when you post the funny stuff. I know you like to skip what you don't like, but I hope others click on this link:

http://dkusa.com/pdf/SC_Fed_Complaint.pdf

If these charges are correct, SC has produced music without EVER asking permission, . Not just an "oops", but what seems to be on purpose, if read starting from pg 21 on. A long history per these charges...

Joe:again this is most likely one of the instances where the rules were changed, and not a deliberate case of infringement. Of course this is just my opinion, as I wasn't actually there. But all soundchoice would have to do is prove they paid royalities under compulsory licenses, and if it was done before the rules changed *ie karaoke was legally deemed an audio visual product* then most likely they would win.

-James

 

[Guest]

Joe,

I read it and found it very interesting, I also searched the case numbers in the federal system through PACER and it seems that that case never made it to trial. Don't know if it was dismissed, settled or dropped! But anyway we now know that there are at least three songs (that no one sings, on karaoke) that SC has had a suit filed against them on.

Now Joe, if you will explain exactly how that has any relevance to Sound Choice filling trademark violations against the users of said product, I would be even more interested!

 

[Wall Of Sound]

Now Joe, if you will explain exactly how that has any relevance to Sound Choice filling trademark violations against the users of said product, I would be even more interested!

Ask Chip Staley who owns the website dkusa.com that Joe posted the link....

Take a google and justia search on him....

He seems to know a lot about suing MTU ( Who makes the HOSTER KJ program) for copyright infringement...