What's new
By:

Questions about the Arizona Suits

Loneavenger said:
See that's the problem in your arguments and my point exactly. Staley is arguing about these cases that were settled in 2006. That was 5 YEARS AGO. They are still in business and authorized to produce new tracks from the PUBLISHERS. Seems to me they must be doing something right in the eyes of the publishers.
Click to expand...

What does that prove? Do you think that Kurt would refuse to sell Chip a couple of Gem sets? Or that Debi wouldn't sell Pro the Essential 450's?
 
No Joe, if they were huge pirates, and this term only came due to legal action with the publishers, then the publishers would not continue to do business with/authorize new music to be made by said pirates that supposedly owe them money. Obviously, this isn't the case and past situations that may have existed have been taken care of.
 
Loneavenger said:
No Joe, if they were huge pirates, and this term only came due to legal action with the publishers, then the publishers would not continue to do business with/authorize new music to be made by said pirates that supposedly owe them money. Obviously, this isn't the case and past situations that may have existed have been taken care of.
Click to expand...

Why would they not continue to do business? That is the publishers purpose, is it not? Market and sell the music on behalf af the musicians, composers, etc?? And they can sue for unauthorized use. What good would it do them to stop doing business with a karaoke manufacturer?

It almost sounds as if you want to cast doubt that there was ever unauthorized use regarding the manu's. My only problem with any past infractions is as someone else stated, now the fox wants to be appointed to watch the hen house. They can try to sue all the pirates they want. No one here ever said different.
 
Bazza said:
And don't forget the kick **** GEM series which I understand is doing very well.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, FORCED disc sales of recycled product seem to be OK..... Of course, there are those KJs that don't realize that paying a licensing fee to a company that is selling tracks that are UNLICENSED in the U.S. is kind of silly.....
 
Paradigm Karaoke said:
good point here, i do see the irony in it, please don't mistake that. where i see a difference is that the manus have admitted to it, and have paid for the infractions. .
Click to expand...

.....And yet are still being sued for doing the same things over and over.... We're talking about a history of over 15 YEARS- no one can claim "error" anymore....
 
Joe C , Sandman is referring to Sound Choices Current Studios which are open and doing business daily. They operate under the business name " Satellite Recording Studios ". Same building as well as company as Sound Choice. They have various business operations that operate through their studios. Looking at one of their most recent posts it looks like they finished up some projects for the Cartoon Network last week. You really should check them out, their resume' is extensive and i had a lot of fun meeting the guys responsible for running the day to day operations of that studio.
 
Loneavenger said:
Simply YES! They are manufacturers, Those issues are not your problem as the end user.
Click to expand...

Lone, you know that you have my respect-but the mfrs. lack of licensing IS a problem for us, on three levels:

1) SC's demand for licensing fees when they have absolutely U.S. licensing themselves.

2) Their intimidation tactics used, though they have no valid court case- Their Logos are illegally attached to tracks in the U.S.

3) If the publishers ever get involved, and a KJ is working with a PC rather then original mfrs.' discs, they will be held responsible.
 
Joe C, Your Number 3 is kind of the key point....See the fact of the matter is that none of us have the right to perform the media shift that most do to hard drives. When the Manufacturers come into a location technically all they need to do is see a host operating a computer and that is grounds for an audit. Only after an audit will Sound Choice grant you THEIR permission to perform the Media shift. Until you have that permission from them you are operating illegally. NOW, once they audit you , you still need to worry about the publishers, but it is not just publishers that need to grant you rights. That seems to get forgotten repeatedly. In these suits if you're a computer based host ( which you don't have to worry about Joe ) then you have already given up the right to tell them they have no right to audit.
 
Loneavenger said:
The point is you are so angry that these companies are taking actions to recoup their losses that you will do anything to try and make them look like some kind of evil entities.
Click to expand...

Nope, the companies got screwed and deserve to recoup- but not at the cost of the innocent, and not for tracks that they had no right to produce.

See, though the two camps may be ethically different, it's really only a matter of focus. One set says " let's get those evil pirate, and if a few innocents get caught in the the net, well that's ok". Another set (mine) say " If it costs FIVE innocent people time, money, reputation, and business to catch one pirate, it's not worth it." I hate bullies.

You want to catch a pirate? Great. Get off your lazy, cheap, fat azz and do the work: IN-FREAKING-VESTIGATE- leave the innocents out of it.

Unfortunately, Kurt has no such ethical problems- scare 'em and grab the money.

I need a barrel of Purell......
 
Loneavenger said:
Joe C , Sandman is referring to Sound Choices Current Studios which are open and doing business daily. They operate under the business name " Satellite Recording Studios ". Same building as well as company as Sound Choice. They have various business operations that operate through their studios. Looking at one of their most recent posts it looks like they finished up some projects for the Cartoon Network last week. You really should check them out, their resume' is extensive and i had a lot of fun meeting the guys responsible for running the day to day operations of that studio.
Click to expand...

Great, but they haven't produced ANY NEW karaoke tracks, have they?
 
Loneavenger said:
Joe C, Your Number 3 is kind of the key point....See the fact of the matter is that none of us have the right to perform the media shift that most do to hard drives....... In these suits if you're a computer based host ( which you don't have to worry about Joe ) then you have already given up the right to tell them they have no right to audit.
Click to expand...

See, there is the problem you're not getting. I DO have to worry about it if the publishers get involved. Yes, I'm original mfr. disc based, which puts MOST of the responsibility on the the mfr., but I'm still out there too. This is why I asked CB about those 9 songs ( which, after 4 requests) I assume are still illegally produced.

....And what about #1- demanding licensing fees for tracks that SC has no licensing for ( illegally distributed in the U.S.?)
 
JoeChartreuse said:
tracks that SC has no licensing for (illegally distributed in the U.S.?)
Click to expand...

There you go again claiming/assuming things are "illegal". Simply because something is licensed in another country does not necessarily mean it is "illegal" here. Just like the Sunfly/Tricerasoft downloads, the word is "untested". A gray area.
 
Bazza said:
There you go again claiming/assuming things are "illegal". Simply because something is licensed in another country does not necessarily mean it is "illegal" here. Just like the Sunfly/Tricerasoft downloads, the word is "untested". A gray area.
Click to expand...

We'll know soon enough if they are legal or not and finally put this argument to rest.
 
Bazza said:
There you go again claiming/assuming things are "illegal". Simply because something is licensed in another country does not necessarily mean it is "illegal" here. Just like the Sunfly/Tricerasoft downloads, the word is "untested". A gray area.
Click to expand...

Try and remember that when referring to the media shifting that KJs are doing as illegal.
 
Pro n Di: see post # 226 & 230.

My concern is my ILLEGAL competiton, NOT where i get my music.

Paultry fee???? You have NO CLUE!!! I am WAY above my competiton in payscale!!! INCLUDING one account that has a competitor IN house, 2 other nights ( was 3 but they lost one), who settled and is losing their base of customers because ALL they have now is their Gem Series' ( plural) and yes I get more than they do here too!!!! It is alot more than $50.00 and depending on sale can be WAY more! You assume WAY too much!!!

Di, your rants are sometimes out there! No, I'm not sayin it's ok. Did I say that? Again read 226 and 230 ( try to comprehend)

Your "theory of a "pass" is nuts! I'm talking about the TOS for this board NOT giving any mfr pass for what you ( incorrectly) THINK.

WOW!!!!
 
Loneavenger said:
to try and say that they have stolen music therefore have no right to recover their losses is completely absurd. That is what i find ridiculous.
Click to expand...

HUH? Though I don't think anyone is actually against a company recouping losses using the PROPER methodology, the statement above is a tough one to read.

If someone has stolen a car, and I smash the windows, would he have the right to sue me for damages? That's the way I read your post. Is that what you meant?
 
Bazza said:
There you go again claiming/assuming things are "illegal". Simply because something is licensed in another country does not necessarily mean it is "illegal" here. Just like the Sunfly/Tricerasoft downloads, the word is "untested". A gray area.
Click to expand...

Please re-read my post: I put a question mark after "illegally distributed"- because I don't know if that is true or not.

As for the downloads- yup, they are as untested as anything that SC is currently trying. However, without licensing (required in the U.S., but none ever drafted- catch 22), the downloads remain illegal. Not yet prosecuted, but illegal.

U.S. licensing is required for U.S. music producers. While I'm not sure of the distribution legality, I AM sure that logos attached to karaoke tracks without U.S. licensing are not legally there, and so can not be used as evidence in a Trademark Infringement case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top