|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
Author |
Message |
cliffd64
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:24 am |
|
|
Novice Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:30 am Posts: 47 Been Liked: 5 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: Ok, for those of you who want, or NEED clarification on ANY of this, do call Gretchen. None of us, who are running legitimately have ANYTHING to worry about. The DTE stuff is safe to use, as long as you do the right thing and not multi-rig with one copy of the song. The audits ARE TOTALLY VOLUNTARY. They reason they re-instated was for those who asked for them. No one HAS to get audited if they don't want to. I now feel confident that I can use my 17 songs without any trouble.
I suggest ANY of you who have any questions PLEASE do contact Gretchen. She's awesome to talk to, extremely pleasant, and knows what she is talking about. She has a really nice voice, too, makes her very easy to listen to, and very easy to talk to.
To Lone Ranger, Dude, you are wrong!! They are NOT going after people quite like Sound Choice is. They aren't quite as ruthless as Kurt and his vengeance kick.
Thank you again, Gretchen. Exactly what I would expect to hear. Thanks for clearing up a lot of issues.
|
|
Top |
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:29 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm Posts: 6086 Images: 1 Location: Redmond, WA Been Liked: 1665 times
|
***UPDATE***
I spoke to Gretchen yesterday.
The Piracy Recovery, LLC / Digitrax definition of a "Vetted KJ" is someone that subscribes to the Karaoke Cloud or the monthly hits program. That is how you get on the Vetted KJ list.
If you have discs, you can request an audit. There is a charge for the audit. However, there is no "1 Year" certification as there was in the past. The "certification" will state something similar to "We verify that as of this date XX/XX/XXXX that the library is certified". They do not have a variance process like what Sound Choice offers, just a one time audit. They do not provide for nor accept any means of ongoing certification so if there were a significant change in your Chartbuster collection that you felt needed to be reported/audited you would have to go through another paid for audit.
Based on the information provided by Gretchen yesterday, I DO NOT intend to go through an audit at this time. I think it is unfortunate that the "Vetted KJ" list is limited to those that subscribe, but I understand the reasoning behind it.
I forgot to ask her one question which I will call back and ask today then post about later.
-Chris
_________________ -Chris
|
|
Top |
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:36 am |
|
|
Extreme Plus Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am Posts: 6103 Been Liked: 634 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote:
To Lone Ranger, Dude, you are wrong!! They are NOT going after people quite like Sound Choice is. They aren't quite as ruthless as Kurt and his vengeance kick.
Thank you again, Gretchen. Smooth I'm no SC supporter and for sure not a cheerleader, I don't use their product at all and have totally boycotted SC for over Five years now. Having said that even Kurt as ruthless and vendetta minded as he may well be, had a sense that he needed legal hosts on his side. SC had the sense to realize they needed a way to divide the legal from the illegal, and to show to the court, that they tried to establish if there was a need for court action, before they showed up at the old courthouse. PR should have learned from SC's example and had an audit system in place before they resorted to this mass lawsuit blitz of theirs. From the way I read the responses from former certified hosts, former since their certifications have expired, they are unhappy with the way PR/WWD/CB has handled this whole question about audits. Even Thunder one of the manus biggest supporters is disillusioned. It is still too early to tell if PR will be worse than Kurt and company, but they haven't started out well so far.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:53 am |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am Posts: 3885 Images: 0 Been Liked: 397 times
|
The Lone Ranger wrote: Smoothedge69 wrote:
To Lone Ranger, Dude, you are wrong!! They are NOT going after people quite like Sound Choice is. They aren't quite as ruthless as Kurt and his vengeance kick.
Thank you again, Gretchen. Smooth I'm no SC supporter and for sure not a cheerleader, I don't use their product at all and have totally boycotted SC for over Five years now. Having said that even Kurt as ruthless and vendetta minded as he may well be, had a sense that he needed legal hosts on his side. SC had the sense to realize they needed a way to divide the legal from the illegal, and to show to the court, that they tried to establish if there was a need for court action, before they showed up at the old courthouse. PR should have learned from SC's example and had an audit system in place before they resorted to this mass lawsuit blitz of theirs. From the way I read the responses from former certified hosts, former since their certifications have expired, they are unhappy with the way PR/WWD/CB has handled this whole question about audits. Even Thunder one of the manus biggest supporters is disillusioned. It is still too early to tell if PR will be worse than Kurt and company, but they haven't started out well so far. Call Gretchen. Just don't be a dick with her.
_________________ I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
Top |
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:29 am |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am Posts: 3885 Images: 0 Been Liked: 397 times
|
The Lone Ranger wrote: 8) Smooth the problem is not with Gretchen she is only the go between trying to setup an auditing system. An auditing system that PR should of had in place over a year ago. If they had done this one little thing it would have helped them with former certified hosts and hosts that wanted their material audited. They didn't do it, and Gretchen is trying to do damage control now, not because of her error, but rather because of their lack of good judgement. The same lack of good judgement SC has demonstrated from time to time. I want to give PR a chance but they have already shot themselves in the foot, coming out of the gate. This has nothing to do with Gretchen. Why are you always so damn stubborn?? I am telling you to call her to get the full story. Simple as that.
_________________ I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
Top |
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:37 am |
|
|
Extreme Plus Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am Posts: 6103 Been Liked: 634 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: The Lone Ranger wrote: 8) Smooth the problem is not with Gretchen she is only the go between trying to setup an auditing system. An auditing system that PR should of had in place over a year ago. If they had done this one little thing it would have helped them with former certified hosts and hosts that wanted their material audited. They didn't do it, and Gretchen is trying to do damage control now, not because of her error, but rather because of their lack of good judgement. The same lack of good judgement SC has demonstrated from time to time. I want to give PR a chance but they have already shot themselves in the foot, coming out of the gate. This has nothing to do with Gretchen. Why are you always so damn stubborn?? I am telling you to call her to get the full story. Simple as that. What practical reason would I need to call Gretchen smooth? I will only be in business a couple more months and then retirement. Just like you can't see paying $175.00 for a few songs, I can't see going through the hassle and expense of audit with so small a window left. Is that being stubborn or practical? I'm not upset with Gretchen just the person who is in charge over at PR with their legal bungling.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Alan B
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:36 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:24 pm Posts: 4466 Been Liked: 1052 times
|
Imagine for a moment, you bought a quart of milk. It came in a milk carton. And imagine, you had to drink it from the very container that it was sold in. You couldn't pour it and drink it from a glass, or a bowl or a mug or whatever. You couldn't transfer it to any other item to drink it from. And... you could only drink it (from the carton) in your house. You couldn't take it out in public. Let's face it, we don't want to deal with the milk police.
Some things are just so stupid and ridiculous.
_________________ Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.
|
|
Top |
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:45 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm Posts: 6086 Images: 1 Location: Redmond, WA Been Liked: 1665 times
|
Alan B wrote: Imagine for a moment, you bought a quart of milk. It came in a milk carton. And imagine, you had to drink it from the very container that it was sold in. You couldn't pour it and drink it from a glass, or a bowl or a mug or whatever. You couldn't transfer it to any other item to drink it from. And... you could only drink it (from the carton) in your house. You couldn't take it out in public. Let's face it, we don't want to deal with the milk police.
Some things are just so stupid and ridiculous. Which is why I don't drink milk. -Chris
_________________ -Chris
|
|
Top |
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:19 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm Posts: 22978 Songs: 35 Images: 3 Location: Tacoma, WA Been Liked: 2126 times
|
Alan B wrote: Imagine for a moment, you bought a quart of milk. It came in a milk carton. And imagine, you had to drink it from the very container that it was sold in. You couldn't pour it and drink it from a glass, or a bowl or a mug or whatever. You couldn't transfer it to any other item to drink it from. And... you could only drink it (from the carton) in your house. You couldn't take it out in public. Let's face it, we don't want to deal with the milk police.
Some things are just so stupid and ridiculous. However milk doesn't fall under any kind of law prohibiting the transfer (but it would most likely be classified under 'fair use' if it did). Music does have laws that clearly states you cannot - at least for commercial use!
_________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
Top |
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:27 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am Posts: 3885 Images: 0 Been Liked: 397 times
|
Lonman wrote: Alan B wrote: Imagine for a moment, you bought a quart of milk. It came in a milk carton. And imagine, you had to drink it from the very container that it was sold in. You couldn't pour it and drink it from a glass, or a bowl or a mug or whatever. You couldn't transfer it to any other item to drink it from. And... you could only drink it (from the carton) in your house. You couldn't take it out in public. Let's face it, we don't want to deal with the milk police.
Some things are just so stupid and ridiculous. However milk doesn't fall under any kind of law prohibiting the transfer (but it would most likely be classified under 'fair use' if it did). Music does have laws that clearly states you cannot - at least for commercial use! Except, none of this has anything to do with copyright. It's all about trademark. Remember, the karaoke mfrs don't own the copyrights to anything.
_________________ I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
Top |
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:43 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm Posts: 4094 Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada Been Liked: 309 times
|
And most important when the milk is gone it's gone. I doubt the dairy will give you eternal refills.
_________________ You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
Top |
|
|
Alan B
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:51 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:24 pm Posts: 4466 Been Liked: 1052 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: Lonman wrote: Alan B wrote: Imagine for a moment, you bought a quart of milk. It came in a milk carton. And imagine, you had to drink it from the very container that it was sold in. You couldn't pour it and drink it from a glass, or a bowl or a mug or whatever. You couldn't transfer it to any other item to drink it from. And... you could only drink it (from the carton) in your house. You couldn't take it out in public. Let's face it, we don't want to deal with the milk police.
Some things are just so stupid and ridiculous. However milk doesn't fall under any kind of law prohibiting the transfer (but it would most likely be classified under 'fair use' if it did). Music does have laws that clearly states you cannot - at least for commercial use! Except, none of this has anything to do with copyright. It's all about trademark. Remember, the karaoke mfrs don't own the copyrights to anything. You're right. Let's not confuse the two.
_________________ Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:03 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm Posts: 4433 Location: New York City Been Liked: 757 times
|
The Lone Ranger wrote: What practical reason would I need to call Gretchen smooth? I will only be in business a couple more months and then retirement. Just like you can't see paying $175.00 for a few songs, I can't see going through the hassle and expense of audit with so small a window left. Is that being stubborn or practical? The PRACTICAL REASON for you to call, would be so that YOU could relay something more accurate than your (many times) DISTORTED and PREJUDICED view on everything.
Last edited by Cueball on Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Insane KJ
|
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:41 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm Posts: 317 Been Liked: 18 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: Remember, the karaoke mfrs don't own the copyrights to anything. Incorrect. They own the copyright to their renditions, the recordings they produced with studio musicians. Karaoke songs are not recordings of the original artists.
_________________ -- Mark
|
|
Top |
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:07 am |
|
|
Extreme Plus Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am Posts: 6103 Been Liked: 634 times
|
cueball wrote: The Lone Ranger wrote: What practical reason would I need to call Gretchen smooth? I will only be in business a couple more months and then retirement. Just like you can't see paying $175.00 for a few songs, I can't see going through the hassle and expense of audit with so small a window left. Is that being stubborn or practical? The PRACTICAL REASON for you to call, would be so that YOU could relay something more accurate than your (many times) DISTORTED and PREJUDICED view on everything. Oh I guess the other side doesn't display a DISTORTED and PREJUDICED view of the karaoke world do they cue? A side where two failing manus are trying to make a buck off of every host they can before the ride off into the sunset. If these manus want accuracy cue it would be a simple matter for any spokes person to come on here and lay out for all hosts all the information. Without the individual host having to call the company up and have their phone number caller ID'd by DTE, who could relay the information to PR. Just about every host legal and illegal feel this renewal of the legal process by PR/WWD was a big pr mistake, without an audit system in place. Now as an after thought they are trying to put together something to take the heat off them. They had the example of SC to follow as to what to do and not do and they still blew it. At least to me this indicates they have no respect for hosts or their craft, and only look on us as a way to recoup their waning fortunes.
|
|
Top |
|
|
MrBoo
|
Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:04 am |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:35 am Posts: 1945 Been Liked: 427 times
|
Insane KJ wrote: Smoothedge69 wrote: Remember, the karaoke mfrs don't own the copyrights to anything. Incorrect. They own the copyright to their renditions, the recordings they produced with studio musicians. Karaoke songs are not recordings of the original artists. Their rights are much more limited than they attempt to assume. MOST rights fall to the original copyright holders.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Lone Wolf
|
Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:49 pm |
|
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 10:11 am Posts: 1832 Location: TX Been Liked: 59 times
|
Lonman wrote: Read up on copyright law - 'fair use' only applies to personal use only, not commercial. I am not going to dig again, it's been pointed out here, there and everywhere for years. So are you saying that all Commercial DJ's that have copied their discs to a HD are illegal? I don't know one DJ that carries discs to a show.
_________________ I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS! A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet
|
|
Top |
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:11 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm Posts: 4433 Location: New York City Been Liked: 757 times
|
The Lone Ranger wrote: Oh I guess the other side doesn't display a DISTORTED and PREJUDICED view of the karaoke world do they cue?... I didn't address the others who you seemed to have referred to in your response. I addressed YOU! Funny how you felt the urgent need to deflect the question away from YOU and turn it around to THEM. The Lone Ranger wrote: If these manus want accuracy cue it would be a simple matter for any spokes person to come on here and lay out for all hosts all the information. So, in other words, it sounds like your answer to my question is, until THEY come on here to spell everything out, it's perfectly fine for you to give your own take on it as if it were fact.
|
|
Top |
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:39 am |
|
|
Extreme Plus Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am Posts: 6103 Been Liked: 634 times
|
cueball wrote: The Lone Ranger wrote: Oh I guess the other side doesn't display a DISTORTED and PREJUDICED view of the karaoke world do they cue?... I didn't address the others who you seemed to have referred to in your response. I addressed YOU! Funny how you felt the urgent need to deflect the question away from YOU and turn it around to THEM. The Lone Ranger wrote: If these manus want accuracy cue it would be a simple matter for any spokes person to come on here and lay out for all hosts all the information. So, in other words, it sounds like your answer to my question is, until THEY come on here to spell everything out, it's perfectly fine for you to give your own take on it as if it were fact. I took a page out of their book cue, if any host criticizes or protests the manus solutions to the piracy problem, they are declared pirates sympathizers or worse pirates themselves. This is just like when senator McCarthy used to accuse political enemies of being communists or communist supporters, or soft on communism. If a host has a different view from the norm it is distorted and prejudiced. I didn't like the way we were hoodwinked into the Iraq war either, does that make me a traitor? My answer to your question cue is this. If these manus are really true business's then why not come on here and tell us the consumers about their product? This is very cheap advertising and if they convince enough hosts to sign up for their marvelous products, others will buy also. Why do we have to knock on their door like some speak easy and tell them instead of "Joe sent me", everything they need to locate our business's? The answer is the only way they can push their products is to use suits to drive sales as their total marketing model. If they really wanted to set the record straight and stop hosts from giving their own take on the situation, all they have to do, is do what they are asking the hosts to do make full disclosure. As long as one side keeps secrets so will the other side cue, that is because the manus have created this atmosphere of distrust through their own actions.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 521 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|