maybe as long as it is being sold from overseas? if it is sold to the "end-user" from the UK like Selectatrack it would be ok, but if it was sold to say Ace Karaoke first for resale then it would break the rules?
Questions about the Arizona Suits
- Thread starter KjAthena
- Start date
Well, you can decide for yourself below:
The MCPS license agreement (the U.K. licensing guys) has a complicated licensing agreement, but let's simplify this by looking at what exactly they are calling within their scope of "territory.":
Okay, so far it sounds like the U.S. is in fact, NOT part of their "territory."
So let's look at clause 3.14 that is mentioned above:
So, let the speculation begin.....
Just in case you were wondering if clause 4.3 changes anything:
Here's 7.8:
and here's 3.16:
The MCPS license agreement (the U.K. licensing guys) has a complicated licensing agreement, but let's simplify this by looking at what exactly they are calling within their scope of "territory.":
Okay, so far it sounds like the U.S. is in fact, NOT part of their "territory."
So let's look at clause 3.14 that is mentioned above:
So, let the speculation begin.....
Just in case you were wondering if clause 4.3 changes anything:
Here's 7.8:
and here's 3.16:
wow, that says a whole lot of nada. the U.S. is not a U.K. territory, got it. therefore if it was made after july 1, or made before july 1 but distributed after december 31 then it falls under this particular agreement. what is the agreement though? you said it is complicated, did you see what the actual rules are? what you posted was good and clarifies who has to follow which rules, is there a cliff notes version of the new rules?
Paradigm Karaoke said:
No, it's not that the U.S is not "a U.K. territory" at all, but rather that the U.S. and Canada are "excluded from the territories covered under this agreement" meaning that the U.K. license is not as "worldwide" as others have claimed, but has very definite limitations.
- Messages
- 2,490
- Highlights
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
- Location
- Bergen County, NJ
- Peak Coin
- 0.000000¢
- DB Transfer
- 0.000000¢
The thing is, they are talking about distribution. To me this means that a U.S. distributor/re-seller like Sound Choice can no longer bring them in. However, if I were to order a "onesie" for myself from overseas via the internet, I should have no problem....
In other words, I can order a disc direct from Zoom ( and wait for it) , but since direct purchase of the GEM series from MediaPlas is unavailable, those discs would be illegal- and by illegal, I mean that anyone who re-sells that product ( and as far as I know, only SC does so, since it's under their brand name) may be open to criminal ( not civil) prosecution. Interesting....
In other words, I can order a disc direct from Zoom ( and wait for it) , but since direct purchase of the GEM series from MediaPlas is unavailable, those discs would be illegal- and by illegal, I mean that anyone who re-sells that product ( and as far as I know, only SC does so, since it's under their brand name) may be open to criminal ( not civil) prosecution. Interesting....
SBI America is still up. I emailed Selectatrack on the subject just as an experiment to see if they respond or what they say. Their website says that it operates under UK laws. SBIs says that due to territorial restrictions, not all of their titles may be available for US licensing.
- Messages
- 2,490
- Highlights
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
- Location
- Bergen County, NJ
- Peak Coin
- 0.000000¢
- DB Transfer
- 0.000000¢
c. staley said:
"Advertisement?"..... Anyone?... Bueller? Anyone?....
OOOOOooooo...... I just caught that... Really starting to add up.
The Great Chartreuse-ini will be making a prediction soon...
Hey C Staley, do you have permission to reproduce and or use SC's trademark/logo in any way?
Why the cryptic post? Can't say what you mean for fear of reprisal? Good.
Why the cryptic post? Can't say what you mean for fear of reprisal? Good.
NEVER EVER EVER Licensed products
Unsubscription information:
For those that want to bash the “survivors” (CB, PHM, SC, Pocket Songs, Priddis Music) that have licensed and paid or settled and paid publishers for licenses, ask them if they have any of the following products in their libraries for which NO LICENSES WERE EVER OBTAINED AND NO ROYALTIES WERE EVER PAID (and that’s why those companies are not around - their got sued out of existence or slunk off into the night before they were caught).
Ready?
Music Maestro, Sweet Georgia Brown, Radio Starz, Quickhitz, ALL OF THE SUPER CDGS on the market, regardless of brand, NuTech, BackStage, Standing Ovation, Northstar, Stardisc, Legends, Top Hits Monthly, and basically all the other companies who are out of business.
Unsubscription information:
For those that want to bash the “survivors” (CB, PHM, SC, Pocket Songs, Priddis Music) that have licensed and paid or settled and paid publishers for licenses, ask them if they have any of the following products in their libraries for which NO LICENSES WERE EVER OBTAINED AND NO ROYALTIES WERE EVER PAID (and that’s why those companies are not around - their got sued out of existence or slunk off into the night before they were caught).
Ready?
Music Maestro, Sweet Georgia Brown, Radio Starz, Quickhitz, ALL OF THE SUPER CDGS on the market, regardless of brand, NuTech, BackStage, Standing Ovation, Northstar, Stardisc, Legends, Top Hits Monthly, and basically all the other companies who are out of business.
So, let the speculation begin.....
Just in case you were wondering if clause 4.3 changes anything:
---Quote---
*4.3* Clause 4.2 does not apply in respect of Karaoke Product notified by the Producer to the Society under a prior agreement between the Producer and
the Society.
---End Quote---
Here's 7.8:
---Quote---
7.8 In relation to Karaoke Product Released and or distributed outside of the United Kingdom, the Society reserves the right, on three months notice,
to require the Producer to pay royalties according to the standard licence for Karaoke Product applicable in the relevant country.
---End Quote---
and here's 3.16:
---Quote---
3.16 The Licensee acknowledges that separate permissions may need to be obtained in addition to those granted under this Agreement, in relation to
Karaoke Product Released and/or distributed outside of the United Kingdom, where such Karaoke Product includes Repertoire Works which do not originate
from the United Kingdom or United States of America.
---End Quote---
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33971
Posted by: Paradigm Karaoke
On: 02-11-2011 09:05 PM
wow, that says a whole lot of nada. the U.S. is not a U.K. territory, got it. therefore if it was made after july 1, or made before july 1 but
distributed after december 31 then it falls under this particular agreement. what is the agreement though? you said it is complicated, did you see
what the actual rules are? what you posted was good and clarifies who has to follow which rules, is there a cliff notes version of the new rules?
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33972
Posted by: c. staley
On: 02-11-2011 09:22 PM
---Quote (Originally by Paradigm Karaoke)---
wow, that says a whole lot of nada. the U.S. is not a U.K. territory, got it. therefore if it was made after july 1, or made before july 1 but
distributed after december 31 then it falls under this particular agreement. what is the agreement though? you said it is complicated, did you see
what the actual rules are? what you posted was good and clarifies who has to follow which rules, is there a cliff notes version of the new rules?
---End Quote---
No, it's not that the U.S is not "a U.K. territory" at all, but rather that the U.S. and Canada are "excluded from the territories covered under
this agreement" meaning that the U.K. license is not as "worldwide" as others have claimed, but has very definite limitations.
Just in case you were wondering if clause 4.3 changes anything:
---Quote---
*4.3* Clause 4.2 does not apply in respect of Karaoke Product notified by the Producer to the Society under a prior agreement between the Producer and
the Society.
---End Quote---
Here's 7.8:
---Quote---
7.8 In relation to Karaoke Product Released and or distributed outside of the United Kingdom, the Society reserves the right, on three months notice,
to require the Producer to pay royalties according to the standard licence for Karaoke Product applicable in the relevant country.
---End Quote---
and here's 3.16:
---Quote---
3.16 The Licensee acknowledges that separate permissions may need to be obtained in addition to those granted under this Agreement, in relation to
Karaoke Product Released and/or distributed outside of the United Kingdom, where such Karaoke Product includes Repertoire Works which do not originate
from the United Kingdom or United States of America.
---End Quote---
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33971
Posted by: Paradigm Karaoke
On: 02-11-2011 09:05 PM
wow, that says a whole lot of nada. the U.S. is not a U.K. territory, got it. therefore if it was made after july 1, or made before july 1 but
distributed after december 31 then it falls under this particular agreement. what is the agreement though? you said it is complicated, did you see
what the actual rules are? what you posted was good and clarifies who has to follow which rules, is there a cliff notes version of the new rules?
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33972
Posted by: c. staley
On: 02-11-2011 09:22 PM
---Quote (Originally by Paradigm Karaoke)---
wow, that says a whole lot of nada. the U.S. is not a U.K. territory, got it. therefore if it was made after july 1, or made before july 1 but
distributed after december 31 then it falls under this particular agreement. what is the agreement though? you said it is complicated, did you see
what the actual rules are? what you posted was good and clarifies who has to follow which rules, is there a cliff notes version of the new rules?
---End Quote---
No, it's not that the U.S is not "a U.K. territory" at all, but rather that the U.S. and Canada are "excluded from the territories covered under
this agreement" meaning that the U.K. license is not as "worldwide" as others have claimed, but has very definite limitations.
Posted by: possumdog
On: 02-11-2011 06:20 PM
Is there a link for reading the actual law? Unless Zoom's website needs updating, they still list some distributors in the US. Maybe they just can't
be the distrubor themselves? But then where would that leave Selectatrack? They aren't posting any warnings about no longer being able to sell Custom
discs to the US.
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33965
Posted by: Paradigm Karaoke
On: 02-11-2011 06:36 PM
maybe as long as it is being sold from overseas? if it is sold to the "end-user" from the UK like Selectatrack it would be ok, but if it was sold to say
Ace Karaoke first for resale then it would break the rules?
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33970
Posted by: c. staley
On: 02-11-2011 08:53 PM
Well, you can decide for yourself below:
The MCPS license agreement (the U.K. licensing guys) has a complicated licensing agreement, but let's simplify this by looking at what exactly they are
calling within their scope of "territory.":
---Quote---
*_1.40_* “Territory” shall mean the United Kingdom and, subject to clauses 3.16 and 7.8, in the rest of the world, *but excluding
(subject to clause 3.14) the USA and Canada,* unless notified otherwise in writing in relation to any particular Karaoke Product by the Society to the
Producer.
---End Quote---
Okay, so far it sounds like the U.S. is in fact, _*NOT *_part of their "territory."
So let's look at clause 3.14 that is mentioned above:
---Quote---
*3.14* Subject to clause 4.3, this Agreement applies to Karaoke Product which is manufactured and Released after the Commencement Date and to Karaoke
Product notified to the Society and/or manufactured prior to the Commencement Date (including, in the case of manufacture prior to the Commencement
Date, such manufacture pursuant to a previous licence between MCPS and the Producer) but shipped after the Commencement Date provided such product would
otherwise fall within the terms of this Agreement. However, the territorial restrictions on the distribution of Karaoke Product notified under a prior
agreement between the Producer and the Society and which are manufactured prior to 1 July 2010 shall, until 31 December 2010, be those set out in that
prior agreement and not this Agreement. *Therefore, any Karaoke Product (i) manufactured following 1 July 2010 or (ii) manufactured before 1 July 2010
but distributed after 31 December 2010, _shall only be licensed by the Society to the extent they are distributed in accordance with the territorial
restrictions contained in this Agreement_,* whether or not such product was originally notified to the Society under this Agreement or a prior agreement.
---End Quote---
On: 02-11-2011 06:20 PM
Is there a link for reading the actual law? Unless Zoom's website needs updating, they still list some distributors in the US. Maybe they just can't
be the distrubor themselves? But then where would that leave Selectatrack? They aren't posting any warnings about no longer being able to sell Custom
discs to the US.
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33965
Posted by: Paradigm Karaoke
On: 02-11-2011 06:36 PM
maybe as long as it is being sold from overseas? if it is sold to the "end-user" from the UK like Selectatrack it would be ok, but if it was sold to say
Ace Karaoke first for resale then it would break the rules?
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33970
Posted by: c. staley
On: 02-11-2011 08:53 PM
Well, you can decide for yourself below:
The MCPS license agreement (the U.K. licensing guys) has a complicated licensing agreement, but let's simplify this by looking at what exactly they are
calling within their scope of "territory.":
---Quote---
*_1.40_* “Territory” shall mean the United Kingdom and, subject to clauses 3.16 and 7.8, in the rest of the world, *but excluding
(subject to clause 3.14) the USA and Canada,* unless notified otherwise in writing in relation to any particular Karaoke Product by the Society to the
Producer.
---End Quote---
Okay, so far it sounds like the U.S. is in fact, _*NOT *_part of their "territory."
So let's look at clause 3.14 that is mentioned above:
---Quote---
*3.14* Subject to clause 4.3, this Agreement applies to Karaoke Product which is manufactured and Released after the Commencement Date and to Karaoke
Product notified to the Society and/or manufactured prior to the Commencement Date (including, in the case of manufacture prior to the Commencement
Date, such manufacture pursuant to a previous licence between MCPS and the Producer) but shipped after the Commencement Date provided such product would
otherwise fall within the terms of this Agreement. However, the territorial restrictions on the distribution of Karaoke Product notified under a prior
agreement between the Producer and the Society and which are manufactured prior to 1 July 2010 shall, until 31 December 2010, be those set out in that
prior agreement and not this Agreement. *Therefore, any Karaoke Product (i) manufactured following 1 July 2010 or (ii) manufactured before 1 July 2010
but distributed after 31 December 2010, _shall only be licensed by the Society to the extent they are distributed in accordance with the territorial
restrictions contained in this Agreement_,* whether or not such product was originally notified to the Society under this Agreement or a prior agreement.
---End Quote---
---Quote (Originally by Proformance)---
Joe, you have every right to shop world-wide for your discs and use them here in the USA. (Such is life on the internet.) You simply have to declare
them with customs. It matters not that you use them in a public venue.
The license to produce in the UK only menas those products cannot be *imported for resale* into the USA by a distrinutor or manufacturer. If SC allows
that to happen - then the liability is theirs not the consumers and businesses who unwittingly end up with products. You have no agreement with the
publishers and your use of a foreign made product in the USA breaches no contract to which you are a party and no applicable law, unless the product
itself is restricted by the state department.
If you want foreign language karaoke - the obvious place to get it is overseas. It only matters whether you are a *user* or a *reseller*, and if you
are a reseller - then thay are prohibited from exporting them to you.
---End Quote---
Pro, I don't neccesarily agree or disagree. This bit of information is completely new to me,very new in general, and requires more research.
As it reads above, the only country of export affected would be the UK. It also says "*illegal for UK Karaoke manufacturers to distribute discs
in the US. "*
The way I read it is that these discs can't be brought into the U.S. for resale OR distribution ( exchange of funds not relevant). Since MediaPlas
is the actual mfr., this would seem to leave SC as the U.S. distributor/reseller, and liable.
You know, after thinking about this, and adding in the demands for licensing fees for unrightful product, and making the purchase of the GEM series
part of their settlement, I'm beginning to think that SC may have more to worry about in the near future than possible civil litigation alone...
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33961
Joe, you have every right to shop world-wide for your discs and use them here in the USA. (Such is life on the internet.) You simply have to declare
them with customs. It matters not that you use them in a public venue.
The license to produce in the UK only menas those products cannot be *imported for resale* into the USA by a distrinutor or manufacturer. If SC allows
that to happen - then the liability is theirs not the consumers and businesses who unwittingly end up with products. You have no agreement with the
publishers and your use of a foreign made product in the USA breaches no contract to which you are a party and no applicable law, unless the product
itself is restricted by the state department.
If you want foreign language karaoke - the obvious place to get it is overseas. It only matters whether you are a *user* or a *reseller*, and if you
are a reseller - then thay are prohibited from exporting them to you.
---End Quote---
Pro, I don't neccesarily agree or disagree. This bit of information is completely new to me,very new in general, and requires more research.
As it reads above, the only country of export affected would be the UK. It also says "*illegal for UK Karaoke manufacturers to distribute discs
in the US. "*
The way I read it is that these discs can't be brought into the U.S. for resale OR distribution ( exchange of funds not relevant). Since MediaPlas
is the actual mfr., this would seem to leave SC as the U.S. distributor/reseller, and liable.
You know, after thinking about this, and adding in the demands for licensing fees for unrightful product, and making the purchase of the GEM series
part of their settlement, I'm beginning to think that SC may have more to worry about in the near future than possible civil litigation alone...
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33961
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33937
Posted by: Proformance
On: 02-11-2011 09:29 AM
Joe, you have every right to shop world-wide for your discs and use them here in the USA. (Such is life on the internet.) You simply have to declare
them with customs. It matters not that you use them in a public venue.
The license to produce in the UK only menas those products cannot be *imported for resale* into the USA by a distrinutor or manufacturer. If SC allows
that to happen - then the liability is theirs not the consumers and businesses who unwittingly end up with products. You have no agreement with the
publishers and your use of a foreign made product in the USA breaches no contract to which you are a party and no applicable law, unless the product
itself is restricted by the state department.
If you want foreign language karaoke - the obvious place to get it is overseas. It only matters whether you are a *user* or a *reseller*, and if you
are a reseller - then thay are prohibited from exporting them to you.
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33941
Posted by: c. staley
On: 02-11-2011 11:16 AM
Joe,
I have the other exhibit from other suit (against SC) of 255 songs that were "allegedly" produced with no license. The only filed "satisfaction of
settlement" in any of these three cases was the one from Warner/Chappell against CB.... (none from the "big one.") And like the first, these are both
available for 8 cents a page.
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33959
Posted by: JoeChartreuse
On: 02-11-2011 06:11 PM
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33937
Posted by: Proformance
On: 02-11-2011 09:29 AM
Joe, you have every right to shop world-wide for your discs and use them here in the USA. (Such is life on the internet.) You simply have to declare
them with customs. It matters not that you use them in a public venue.
The license to produce in the UK only menas those products cannot be *imported for resale* into the USA by a distrinutor or manufacturer. If SC allows
that to happen - then the liability is theirs not the consumers and businesses who unwittingly end up with products. You have no agreement with the
publishers and your use of a foreign made product in the USA breaches no contract to which you are a party and no applicable law, unless the product
itself is restricted by the state department.
If you want foreign language karaoke - the obvious place to get it is overseas. It only matters whether you are a *user* or a *reseller*, and if you
are a reseller - then thay are prohibited from exporting them to you.
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33941
Posted by: c. staley
On: 02-11-2011 11:16 AM
Joe,
I have the other exhibit from other suit (against SC) of 255 songs that were "allegedly" produced with no license. The only filed "satisfaction of
settlement" in any of these three cases was the one from Warner/Chappell against CB.... (none from the "big one.") And like the first, these are both
available for 8 cents a page.
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33959
Posted by: JoeChartreuse
On: 02-11-2011 06:11 PM
---Quote (Originally by rumbolt)---
Been watching and reading all the post here and something has occured to me:
Does anyone here on the board actually have a list of the songs that are supposed to have been produced by SC and CB that they never had the license
(or Permission) to produce. I would love to have a copy of that list. Better yet does anyone here have proof that the licenses were never paid by SC and
CB or are we just going off rumor. There are a lot of claims but no proof and there are copies of lawsuits that are being passed around that only mean
someone sued someone and the outcomes never fully disclosed but supposed. Was there anyone here that was actually in the courtroom or the conference
rooms with the parties involved to know what the final outcome was.
All that being said, has everyone checked their CDG library to make sure you dont have any of the "nonlicensed" songs otherwise youldn't you be in
possession of pirated music as some have implied or is it ok since you paid for it.
---End Quote---
Rum, I DO happen to have a list of at least the 180+ songs for which there is a permanent injunction against production against CB. If you PM me an
e-mail address, I should be able to figure out how to send a PDF attachment. I'm fairly certain there are others, but in the case of this list, I know
that they refused to answer my requests on at least 4 different occasions.
As for SC, the list is simple- they have no U.S. licensing for any tracks at this time, per Kurt- UK licensing only, which doesn't meet U.S.
requirements, and is not valid in U.S. jurisdiction.
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33929
Posted by: starzkj
On: 02-11-2011 04:01 AM
---Quote (Originally by JoeChartreuse)---
I just found a bit more information on this. I happened to take a look at Eric's (Starz KJ) USKA site and noticed the following:
" *Recent Publishing rulings make it illegal for UK Karaoke manufacturers to distribute discs in the US. *"
If this is so, SC, whose discs are now manufactured in the UK by MediaPlas are being illegally distributed in the U.S. This would include the GEM
series, for which some are actually paying licensing fees.
If anyone can supply more information ( Eric?) or a link I would be very grateful.
Keep in mind that Eric is not in "my camp".....
---End Quote---
I do not know all of the exact details.. There was a production deadline.. June or July of 2010 and the discs had to be imported into US prior to Jan
1, 2011. Sound Choice brought the discs in under that program just before it lapsed. They did it legally.
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33931
Posted by: starzkj
On: 02-11-2011 04:09 AM
I just read a few pages of this and everyone can disagree, but until a case is litigated, everything here is gray area. Laws are open to interpretation
and those laws have been interpreted in many different ways. Even experts in the IP field disagree constantly.. That is why cases are constantly in
court. Everyone sides with the opinion that best represents their view and no matter what you think you can find an attorney to argue for your side as
long as your checks clear.
The word Karaoke or the term CD+G or sync license do not appear in the US Copyright code or the Digital Millennium Act. Stellar v ABCO classified
Karaoke under the same category as motion pictures because of it's video mixed with audio components. Most of the positions on these issues are going
to require a case to go the distance in court. So let's all keep arguing until we are blue in the face.
No one can claim victory til they spend 10's of thousands of dollars on attorneys and appeals and have a final decision. And there are probably about
4 or 5 separate issues that would need to be decided.
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33934
Posted by: JoeChartreuse
On: 02-11-2011 04:40 AM
---Quote (Originally by starzkj)---
I do not know all of the exact details.. There was a production deadline.. June or July of 2010 and the discs had to be imported into US prior to Jan
1, 2011. Sound Choice brought the discs in under that program just before it lapsed. They did it legally.
---End Quote---
Well, they may have done so at that time, but they are STILL bringing in discs, and from what I understand, MediaPlas is still making discs for them.
A friend bought a non-GEM disc ( SC2001- Bette Midler) in September, and had to wait while it was brought in. These, if the above is correct, would be
illegal.
I have to say, if someone needed a book written on how to screw up a court case, SC has pretty much done everything one could imagine. Boggles the
mind.... The only way a KJ should be able to lose a case is if he died going up the courthouse stairs, or hired Sean Penn's character from Fast Times At Ridgemont High as a lawyer...
Been watching and reading all the post here and something has occured to me:
Does anyone here on the board actually have a list of the songs that are supposed to have been produced by SC and CB that they never had the license
(or Permission) to produce. I would love to have a copy of that list. Better yet does anyone here have proof that the licenses were never paid by SC and
CB or are we just going off rumor. There are a lot of claims but no proof and there are copies of lawsuits that are being passed around that only mean
someone sued someone and the outcomes never fully disclosed but supposed. Was there anyone here that was actually in the courtroom or the conference
rooms with the parties involved to know what the final outcome was.
All that being said, has everyone checked their CDG library to make sure you dont have any of the "nonlicensed" songs otherwise youldn't you be in
possession of pirated music as some have implied or is it ok since you paid for it.
---End Quote---
Rum, I DO happen to have a list of at least the 180+ songs for which there is a permanent injunction against production against CB. If you PM me an
e-mail address, I should be able to figure out how to send a PDF attachment. I'm fairly certain there are others, but in the case of this list, I know
that they refused to answer my requests on at least 4 different occasions.
As for SC, the list is simple- they have no U.S. licensing for any tracks at this time, per Kurt- UK licensing only, which doesn't meet U.S.
requirements, and is not valid in U.S. jurisdiction.
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33929
Posted by: starzkj
On: 02-11-2011 04:01 AM
---Quote (Originally by JoeChartreuse)---
I just found a bit more information on this. I happened to take a look at Eric's (Starz KJ) USKA site and noticed the following:
" *Recent Publishing rulings make it illegal for UK Karaoke manufacturers to distribute discs in the US. *"
If this is so, SC, whose discs are now manufactured in the UK by MediaPlas are being illegally distributed in the U.S. This would include the GEM
series, for which some are actually paying licensing fees.
If anyone can supply more information ( Eric?) or a link I would be very grateful.
Keep in mind that Eric is not in "my camp".....
---End Quote---
I do not know all of the exact details.. There was a production deadline.. June or July of 2010 and the discs had to be imported into US prior to Jan
1, 2011. Sound Choice brought the discs in under that program just before it lapsed. They did it legally.
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33931
Posted by: starzkj
On: 02-11-2011 04:09 AM
I just read a few pages of this and everyone can disagree, but until a case is litigated, everything here is gray area. Laws are open to interpretation
and those laws have been interpreted in many different ways. Even experts in the IP field disagree constantly.. That is why cases are constantly in
court. Everyone sides with the opinion that best represents their view and no matter what you think you can find an attorney to argue for your side as
long as your checks clear.
The word Karaoke or the term CD+G or sync license do not appear in the US Copyright code or the Digital Millennium Act. Stellar v ABCO classified
Karaoke under the same category as motion pictures because of it's video mixed with audio components. Most of the positions on these issues are going
to require a case to go the distance in court. So let's all keep arguing until we are blue in the face.
No one can claim victory til they spend 10's of thousands of dollars on attorneys and appeals and have a final decision. And there are probably about
4 or 5 separate issues that would need to be decided.
************
Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits
http://ourkjtalk.com/threads/1269-Questions-about-the-Arizona-Suits#post33934
Posted by: JoeChartreuse
On: 02-11-2011 04:40 AM
---Quote (Originally by starzkj)---
I do not know all of the exact details.. There was a production deadline.. June or July of 2010 and the discs had to be imported into US prior to Jan
1, 2011. Sound Choice brought the discs in under that program just before it lapsed. They did it legally.
---End Quote---
Well, they may have done so at that time, but they are STILL bringing in discs, and from what I understand, MediaPlas is still making discs for them.
A friend bought a non-GEM disc ( SC2001- Bette Midler) in September, and had to wait while it was brought in. These, if the above is correct, would be
illegal.
I have to say, if someone needed a book written on how to screw up a court case, SC has pretty much done everything one could imagine. Boggles the
mind.... The only way a KJ should be able to lose a case is if he died going up the courthouse stairs, or hired Sean Penn's character from Fast Times At Ridgemont High as a lawyer...
KJSandman said:
I wouldn't rightly know but I'm sure if it's a problem they'll file a lawsuit right away. Perhaps you should report it immediately. "Fear of reprisal " doesn't figure into this at all. Tired of translating for you would be closer.
- Messages
- 2,490
- Highlights
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
- Location
- Bergen County, NJ
- Peak Coin
- 0.000000¢
- DB Transfer
- 0.000000¢
Well, I wish to thank KJ Florida for reposting pretty much the whole thread- It was too hard to understand the first time...:laughpill::rolleyespill:
Now to address the following warm and friendly comments:
"
1) Please tell that @#$@%%# idiot JoeC
2) , that he needs to read a little better AND quit supposing that he KNOWS everything. He doesn’t know WHEN
Mediaplas made the disc – why does he assume it was made AFTER July 1? It is obvious that it was imported well before the January 1, 2011 deadline
if it was in September, so nothing illegal!! When we were bringing in discs, we would wait to have enough of an order to make it worthwhile.
So, if the friend was “waiting” is doesn’t mean they had to wait for the discs to be MADE, just shipped in.
3) I’d really like to know what his primary motivation is against SC that he has to openly lie and try to pass off his lies and BS to other readers
-----------------------------
(quote)
Well, they may have done so at that time, but they are STILL bringing in discs, and from what I understand, MediaPlas is still making discs for
them. A friend bought a non-GEM disc ( SC2001- Bette Midler) in September, and had to wait while it was brought in. These, if the above is correct,
would be illegal
I think that JoeC really needs spend time researching better and quit making so many assumptions that merely support his adjenda. He doesn't know when mediaplas made the disc. Why does he ASSUME that it was made after July 1? Does he think that the discs are produced one at a time as the orders are submitted? It is obvious that it was imported well before the January 1, 2011. So, if it was in September, nothing is illegal!
4) I asked about this and got my information from the horse's mouth. "
1) Aw, c'mere ya big lug- ya need a hug, don'tcha...:winkpill:
2) If you actually read the words that you re-posted, you would see that (excepting my friend's non-gem disc) I said IF they were brought in later....and IF the statements in regard to UK imports were correct... IF
The case of my friends disc is different. The vendor TOLD her it was coming in from the UK. It doesn't matter whether it was being made or shipped- it was after the deadline, if the info provided was correct- again, IF. Therefore, they were bringing in THAT disc AFTER the deadline ( which may be their fault as well, but MediaPlas is working for SC- and didn't say no to the shipment), and knowing SC, I took the liberty of assuming that others are coming in later too. I admit that you are right, and that PROOF of only one disc is all I have, but EXTENSIVE and NUMEROUS past indescrepancies of Sound Choice's make others more likely.
While I am under the understanding that SC brought in Some GEM disc sets under the wire, I have no idea how many, and if it was enough. There are more than one GEM series- how many of each of these sets do you think SC paid for in advance of sales, forced or otherwise?
3) What lie, and what agenda? SPECIFY. I told no lie, and as for an agenda....you tell me. Not saying I don't have one, I'm saying that you probably have no idea what it is. Ethics are involved....
4) The horse's mouth? Who would that be? Not Kurt/SC, I hope- they've been caught out too many times. Someone else?
So how about lunch? A ****tail? A day of pleasant discourse?
Now to address the following warm and friendly comments:
"
1) Please tell that @#$@%%# idiot JoeC
2) , that he needs to read a little better AND quit supposing that he KNOWS everything. He doesn’t know WHEN
Mediaplas made the disc – why does he assume it was made AFTER July 1? It is obvious that it was imported well before the January 1, 2011 deadline
if it was in September, so nothing illegal!! When we were bringing in discs, we would wait to have enough of an order to make it worthwhile.
So, if the friend was “waiting” is doesn’t mean they had to wait for the discs to be MADE, just shipped in.
3) I’d really like to know what his primary motivation is against SC that he has to openly lie and try to pass off his lies and BS to other readers
-----------------------------
(quote)
Well, they may have done so at that time, but they are STILL bringing in discs, and from what I understand, MediaPlas is still making discs for
them. A friend bought a non-GEM disc ( SC2001- Bette Midler) in September, and had to wait while it was brought in. These, if the above is correct,
would be illegal
I think that JoeC really needs spend time researching better and quit making so many assumptions that merely support his adjenda. He doesn't know when mediaplas made the disc. Why does he ASSUME that it was made after July 1? Does he think that the discs are produced one at a time as the orders are submitted? It is obvious that it was imported well before the January 1, 2011. So, if it was in September, nothing is illegal!
4) I asked about this and got my information from the horse's mouth. "
1) Aw, c'mere ya big lug- ya need a hug, don'tcha...:winkpill:
2) If you actually read the words that you re-posted, you would see that (excepting my friend's non-gem disc) I said IF they were brought in later....and IF the statements in regard to UK imports were correct... IF
The case of my friends disc is different. The vendor TOLD her it was coming in from the UK. It doesn't matter whether it was being made or shipped- it was after the deadline, if the info provided was correct- again, IF. Therefore, they were bringing in THAT disc AFTER the deadline ( which may be their fault as well, but MediaPlas is working for SC- and didn't say no to the shipment), and knowing SC, I took the liberty of assuming that others are coming in later too. I admit that you are right, and that PROOF of only one disc is all I have, but EXTENSIVE and NUMEROUS past indescrepancies of Sound Choice's make others more likely.
While I am under the understanding that SC brought in Some GEM disc sets under the wire, I have no idea how many, and if it was enough. There are more than one GEM series- how many of each of these sets do you think SC paid for in advance of sales, forced or otherwise?
3) What lie, and what agenda? SPECIFY. I told no lie, and as for an agenda....you tell me. Not saying I don't have one, I'm saying that you probably have no idea what it is. Ethics are involved....
4) The horse's mouth? Who would that be? Not Kurt/SC, I hope- they've been caught out too many times. Someone else?
So how about lunch? A ****tail? A day of pleasant discourse?
