What's new
By:
Filters

Toqer Goes to the City Counsel of San Jose

KJSandman said:
The information I have is this:

Thunder is alluding to the fact that CB is preparing to take action against illegal karaoke. You may or may not be expecting that. He's not bluffing. He's also alluding to the fact that CB revealed the fact that they now own the licensing and rights associated with Sweet Georgia Brown. If you do not own a legal copy of SGB's CD+G and you use their product as part of a show you could be found to be in violation of those rights and/or to be infringing upon that trademark as well. Again, he's not bluffing when he states that action may come from somewhere you wouldn't expect. Things are changing quickly and they're gaining momentum. That's not a bluff. My cards are on the table.
Click to expand...

First, my thanks to KJ Sandman for sharing.

I have a statement AND a question. The statement is that I believe the SGB DISC collection may not be a big starting point. It was always considered an inexpensive starter set ( and very good for the purpose of finding out what songs were popular in your area) and was probably actually purchased- not pirated- by most. Heck, for this set my backup discs are actually another original set of discs! Just that inexpensive by comparison, even back in the day....

However, for the purposes of this thread, let's talk about a pirated set, or for that matter, a pirated set of many of those labels that produced without any proper licensing. ( And also why they are out of business today).

Just like SC's unlicensed tracks, how can one sue for trademark infingement when the logo is not LEGALLY ATTACHED to the track, and hence not legally there?

I have no doubts in regard to CB's intentions, and since they say outright that they intend to put pirates OUT OF BUSINESS, I applaud them! I just think that other avenues should be explored.
 
Hello to all and regards to Sweet Georgia Brown library, yes we bought that catalog a few years back and obtained all necessary licensing and filed our Copyrights through all the proper channels. If anyone out there has any question about our licensing or our Copyrights, Chartbuster would welcome you to come to our facility and view both the licenses and registered Copyrights. We are not at liberty to send any licenses out to the public as the Publishers will not allow that. You are also welcome to contact each Publisher directly and simply ask. If this is an issue for some of you I recommend that you do just that.
 
Chartbusterette said:
Hello to all and regards to Sweet Georgia Brown library, yes we bought that catalog a few years back and obtained all necessary licensing and filed our Copyrights through all the proper channels. If anyone out there has any question about our licensing or our Copyrights, Chartbuster would welcome you to come to our facility and view both the licenses and registered Copyrights. We are not at liberty to send any licenses out to the public as the Publishers will not allow that. You are also welcome to contact each Publisher directly and simply ask. If this is an issue for some of you I recommend that you do just that.
Click to expand...

A search at the copyright office shows no entries for "Chartbuster Karaoke" or "Big Mama Recording Studios" either. Please provide a link to the copyright(s) you've secured that are mentioned above.

Are you perhaps talking about the copyright offices' "compulsory license fees?" This would explain why a search of the copyright records would show nothing.
 
Chartbusterette said:
Sorry, you did not find them all. Better search again.
Click to expand...

I did.... under "Chartbusters", "Big Mama" and "Tennessee Production Center"

(44 came up as "Tennessee Production Center" and 1 as "Tennessee Productions Center"

How about a providing link?
 
Chartbusterette said:
Hello to all and regards to Sweet Georgia Brown library, yes we bought that catalog a few years back and obtained all necessary licensing and filed our Copyrights through all the proper channels. If anyone out there has any question about our licensing or our Copyrights, Chartbuster would welcome you to come to our facility and view both the licenses and registered Copyrights. We are not at liberty to send any licenses out to the public as the Publishers will not allow that. You are also welcome to contact each Publisher directly and simply ask. If this is an issue for some of you I recommend that you do just that.
Click to expand...

Do you know if Chartbuster will accept the yellow and black sets that are being sold on ebay now? I stopped buying these sets when I found out they were counterfeits of the redish brown discs.

Do they plan on starting to sell these sets again? Because one thing about the originals that I have is that several discs have graphic errors that have showed up on the 'original' yellow discs I have bought. *The original set I bought was factory sealed, and all the discs had no defects so it can't be that*

If you want an example of what I'm talking about then play disc 61 track 9 "It was a very good year" by frank sinatra.

-James
 
KJSandman said:
No, Birdofsong, it is not only for Chip if he asks nicely. It is for anyone who asks nicely.



You are aware of it, but you don't seem to respect it.



Again, we're dealing with your feelings here. If you look at the posts that you are referring to, they are statements of fact. Chip accused Thunder of bluffing. I didn't tell Chip how that made me feel. I told him that it is not a bluff. Chip refuted my statement by restating that it is a bluff. I refuted Chip's statement by stating that I had knowledge of what Thunder was alluding to and therefore am honestly stating that it is not a bluff. Let's talk about the word bluff for a moment. It essentially means to deceive or to mislead someone into believing that they are in an inferior position to gain the advantage without actually possessing the superior position. We can all relate bluffing to playing Poker right? So if I am standing behind Thunder and I can see his cards, I know whether or not he is bluffing. If Chip asks me if Thunder is bluffing, I can say yes or no without identifying the cards Thunder holds. It's Chip's choice to believe me or not. So, what you actually witnessed is a trio of grown men playing a game of Poker. You've also reminded me of exactly why men like to play poker with other men.

Do I think there's "something to it" because Diafel and yourself posted similar reactions? Hardly. The two of you seem to have similar opinions and styles when posting in other threads as well. I've already stated my observation regarding your tendency to post reactionary statements regarding the style of other's communication without contributing to the actual conversation that is occurring. I find it annoying, but I can't do anything about it, so who cares?



That is a lyric to a song. It fits in context of the conversation about dropping brands from your library. What are you going to do when CB contacts you regarding the, shall we say "quasi-legal", act of transferring / counterfeiting / displaying their trademark? There is no implicit disrespect or lack of integrity in that question. The song is "Bad Boys" by Inner Circle.



Your response to your interpretation of my attitude was "pot-shots". Your feelings about my attitude are completely irrelevant to the issue's being discussed. Your persistent attempts to monitor and modify my behavior have surpassed tiring and have become banal. I already have a mommy, and even she can't tell me how to talk. I ask you again, to get over it.


If you want to engage me with regard to the issue we are discussing then you have made a good start by asking this:



The information I have is this:

Thunder is alluding to the fact that CB is preparing to take action against illegal karaoke. You may or may not be expecting that. He's not bluffing. He's also alluding to the fact that CB revealed the fact that they now own the licensing and rights associated with Sweet Georgia Brown. If you do not own a legal copy of SGB's CD+G and you use their product as part of a show you could be found to be in violation of those rights and/or to be infringing upon that trademark as well. Again, he's not bluffing when he states that action may come from somewhere you wouldn't expect. Things are changing quickly and they're gaining momentum. That's not a bluff. My cards are on the table.
Click to expand...
Oh please! Come down off your self-imposed pedestal.
The reaction you got was exactly the one you wanted.
Indeed, it was obviously and certainly a kind of baiting.
You love a certain amount of drama, that much is obvious.
Why else wouldn't you have just said, "No, Chip. Thunder isn't bluffing. CB bought up SGB" and been done with it, if not to enjoy the drama that ensued and that you helped in a large part to create?
Hope you had fun.
 
Chartbusterette said:
Hello to all and regards to Sweet Georgia Brown library, yes we bought that catalog a few years back and obtained all necessary licensing and filed our Copyrights through all the proper channels. If anyone out there has any question about our licensing or our Copyrights, Chartbuster would welcome you to come to our facility and view both the licenses and registered Copyrights. We are not at liberty to send any licenses out to the public as the Publishers will not allow that. You are also welcome to contact each Publisher directly and simply ask. If this is an issue for some of you I recommend that you do just that.
Click to expand...

To clarify: You have not only purchased the label, but you have also licensed all of the tracks that SGB did not?

If that is correct, then CB has a good shot at doing some damage to pirates after all. However, it would only be useful if ALL the tracks are licensed. A few wouldn't do it, because if someone were to show that the majority of tracks weren't licensed, it would kill the case in court.
 
Joe,

Why do you believe that the display of the logo (trademark) has to be directly tied to a licensed music track to be valid in a lawsuit?

Is there any particular reason or court case that would cause you to believe that the display of the trademark would not have validity and standing in a lawsuit on it's own merit?

Also what makes you believe that the majority of tracks sold by any of the manus are not licensed?

Since all three of the surving U.S. manus have been in litigation over licensing issues at one time or another what causes you to believe that they have not been extremely diligent in pursuing the licensing for their product? Wouldn't be a very good business model to pursue given the fact that all three have rather large production facilities in known locations and the music industry is well aware of them!

What makes you believe that in settlement over the licensing issues that the product already released wasn't licensed to the manus by the copyright holders? Common sense tells me the CR holders would have done so to collect the fees on products that could never be recovered anyway!

Since none of us other than the manus and the CR holders have knowledge as to what those settlements were only common sense has any place in the speculation of what did, would have, could have occured.
 
Let me end any speculation whatsoever about Chartbuster Karaoke's licensing right now. All our music is fully licensed for the uses to which we have put it. Period. That holds for mechanical, recording, video synchronization, downloads, physical product, and any other use. We paid nearly four million dollars in licensing in 2009 alone.

There was a three year period following the ABKCO decision during which no publisher had any clue how they were going to license karaoke product. Due to the retroactive nature of the video synch rules, all manufacturers were hit with three years worth of video synch licensing fees, all at once, when the publishers finally got their act together.

We were pleading with the publishers for that entire period for them to come forward with the appropriate licensing scheme, to no avail, only to have them show up one day with their hand out. Luckily, we had three years worth of documentation to show how we tried to pull the information out of them, which stood us in good stead and kept us from being sued into oblivion, unlike many other manufacturers.

We did our due diligence, and will gladly show anyone who cares to examine them the appropriate licenses, at their convenience, at our headquarters. We have exactly nothing to hide.
 
Chartbusterette said:
Let me end any speculation whatsoever about Chartbuster Karaoke's licensing right now. All our music is fully licensed for the uses to which we have put it. Period. That holds for mechanical, recording, video synchronization, downloads, physical product, and any other use. We paid nearly four million dollars in licensing in 2009 alone.

There was a three year period following the ABKCO decision during which no publisher had any clue how they were going to license karaoke product. Due to the retroactive nature of the video synch rules, all manufacturers were hit with three years worth of video synch licensing fees, all at once, when the publishers finally got their act together.

We were pleading with the publishers for that entire period for them to come forward with the appropriate licensing scheme, to no avail, only to have them show up one day with their hand out. Luckily, we had three years worth of documentation to show how we tried to pull the information out of them, which stood us in good stead and kept us from being sued into oblivion, unlike many other manufacturers.

We did our due diligence, and will gladly show anyone who cares to examine them the appropriate licenses, at their convenience, at our headquarters. We have exactly nothing to hide.
Click to expand...

Going to kind of hard to argue with that one Debi, other than the few who will call you a liar!:biggrinpill:
 
Thunder said:
Joe,

1) Why do you believe that the display of the logo (trademark) has to be directly tied to a licensed music track to be valid in a lawsuit?

Is there any particular reason or court case that would cause you to believe that the display of the trademark would not have validity and standing in a lawsuit on it's own merit?

2) Also what makes you believe that the majority of tracks sold by any of the manus are not licensed?
.
Click to expand...


1) The answer to this has not only been posted numerous times throughout these debates, but was included in the very post to which you are replying. Why did you ask again?


2) I never EVER said that the majority of tracks sold by ANY mfrs. were unlicensed. Why did you say that I did? To cause dissent between CB and myself? There is a less polite word for doing that - please refrain in the future. Another non-sequitor.
 
Thank you so much Debi.

I also think you've answered the question: Where were the karaoke mfr's while piracy was gaining a foothold? Involved in a life or death struggle within the music industry.

If one were to look at it objectively, it could be understood that fighting a battle to operate your business legally and fighting thieves who are stealing what you can actually manage to produce is an overwhelming burden for any business.

Congratulations on surviving.

Thank you again for the facts and straightforward information you've provided to everyone at OKJT. Thanks again for making yourself available and reaching out.
 
Chartbusterette said:
Let me end any speculation whatsoever about Chartbuster Karaoke's licensing right now. All our music is fully licensed for the uses to which we have put it. Period. That holds for mechanical, recording, video synchronization, downloads, physical product, and any other use. We paid nearly four million dollars in licensing in 2009 alone.

There was a three year period following the ABKCO decision during which no publisher had any clue how they were going to license karaoke product. Due to the retroactive nature of the video synch rules, all manufacturers were hit with three years worth of video synch licensing fees, all at once, when the publishers finally got their act together.

We were pleading with the publishers for that entire period for them to come forward with the appropriate licensing scheme, to no avail, only to have them show up one day with their hand out. Luckily, we had three years worth of documentation to show how we tried to pull the information out of them, which stood us in good stead and kept us from being sued into oblivion, unlike many other manufacturers.

We did our due diligence, and will gladly show anyone who cares to examine them the appropriate licenses, at their convenience, at our headquarters. We have exactly nothing to hide.
Click to expand...


Debi, despite Steve's ramblings., I have never had any reason to think otherwise in regard to Chartbuster, and have NEVER said otherwise. Steve's comments are his own, made for reasons only he understands.
 
JoeChartreuse said:
Debi, despite Steve's ramblings., I have never had any reason to think otherwise in regard to Chartbuster, and have NEVER said otherwise. Steve's comments are his own, made for reasons only he understands.
Click to expand...

I assure you that no offense is taken whatsoever, and we cast no aspersions on anyone no matter their opinion. We just felt it was better to be proactive, in case there was the slightest doubt in anyone's mind, and put any suspicions to rest.
 
Thunder asks: Joe, why do you believe that the display of the logo (trademark) has to be directly tied to a licensed music track to be valid in a lawsuit?

Joe replies: The answer to this has not only been posted numerous times throughout these debates, but was included in the very post to which you are replying. Why did you ask again?


I'm thinking that I am not certain why you are saying that it must be tied to a licensed music track to be for the trademark infringement to be actionable. The trademark is valid in and of itself.


What I believe to be the answer Joe is referring to: Just like SC's unlicensed tracks, how can one sue for trademark infingement when the logo is not LEGALLY ATTACHED to the track, and hence not legally there?

I guess the question is the answer. Joe believes that you can't sue for trademark infringement if you have knowingly affixed your trademark to unlicensed material.

So, I have another question and pardon me if it has been answered, but is this correct? Specifically in the case of CB and tracks that may have been unlicensed by SGB but have since been adjudicated? I'm trying to figure out what constitutes "legally there."
 
KJSandman said:
So, I have another question and pardon me if it has been answered, but is this correct? Specifically in the case of CB and tracks that may have been unlicensed by SGB but have since been adjudicated? I'm trying to figure out what constitutes "legally there."
Click to expand...

So, I am negotiating the purchase of the Music Maestro Catalog and trademark..... once completed, what's to prevent me from sending my own "letters of intent" for trademark infringement to you and everyone else that has already received one from SC? Does this explain it a little clearer?

(Aldo is really a nice guy... And Caryn is cool too.)
 
Diafel said:
Oh please! Come down off your self-imposed pedestal.
The reaction you got was exactly the one you wanted.
Indeed, it was obviously and certainly a kind of baiting.
You love a certain amount of drama, that much is obvious.
Why else wouldn't you have just said, "No, Chip. Thunder isn't bluffing. CB bought up SGB" and been done with it, if not to enjoy the drama that ensued and that you helped in a large part to create?
Hope you had fun.
Click to expand...

Right on, you nailed me.

I am a superior, manipulative, baiter. I am a dramatic, enjoyer of my creations.

I always have fun...

especially with "the ladies".:laughpill:


I'll stop now. You've ruined it for me.:unhappypill:

Now that we're all on the ground, eye to eye, what is it that you have to say that you believe it is important that I hear? I'm all ears, or eyes actually...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top