Karaoke Forums

OK, except here's what you actually said:



I didn't have to "make it look like" what's in the program description are the terms in their entirety. What's in the program description are the terms. You asked me to "post the contract." The "contract" is posted. It's all there, right on the main page about Chartbuster registration (no need to register to see it), and there's nothing else.

So, basically, what you've done is accused me of hiding the "real" terms of the contract. That was a lie.

You referred to the "program description" for the GEM series agreement, by which I can only assume you're referring to the webpage that describes what the GEM series product is, and claimed that it omits certain terms that are in the written agreement. Problem is, the GEM series agreement is posted prominently right there on the main GEM series page, in its entirety, again, without a need to register to see it. Anyone who wants to can see all of the terms that apply--in fact, very prominently at the bottom of the page, it says:

The Agreement
The document that sets the terms
for your GEM Series license

And when you click on the link, a window pops up with a downloadable PDF attached to it.

So that was another lie.

On top of that, the terms you talk about that are in the GEM series agreement, aren't in the Chartbuster Registration program. The terms you claim I'm hiding aren't there. Another lie.

Oh, and they actually aren't even there in the GEM series agreement. You said "the KJ must promise not to sue you in return (even for infringement)." The GEM series agreement contains no such language, and it never has. Another lie.

You claimed that I don't want people to consult with an attorney before registering, even though I specifically recommended that they do so if they want. Another lie.



The term "application" refers to the online form the KJ fills out. You have to apply to be registered. We review the applications and approve them if everything is correct. If something's wrong--like, for example, someone applies for a free registration without being entitled to it--we contact the KJ, explain what the problem is, and ask them to correct the application.



Imagine that! If you're given every opportunity to register to get the permissions you need to use non-original media, and you show us your middle finger, and we sue you, we might--might--not let you go if it turns out you could've followed the rules and affirmatively chose to break them, costing us a lot more money to get you to comply with the rules. How dare we!?

I didn't believe you until you switched to all-CAPS. Then I knew you were serious.

The difference--not the only difference, but the one that matters for this discussion--between us and the Mafia, dear heart, is that when the Mafia show up at your store demanding "protection" money, they don't actually have any right or authority to do so.

I figured someone even as smart as you seem to be would be able to figure out that if you are going to make money using intellectual property that belongs to someone else, you generally have to follow the rules for doing so.

Requiring people to follow the rules isn't racketeering.

Besides, there are many free options that stay within the rules and give you the opportunity to get the full benefit of using the products you purchased.

Of course, if you want to challenge the rules, PM me your name and location and we'll get a lawsuit going so you can do just that.

James

Perhaps rename the thread title: "The Chip and Jim Debate"?

CONTINUE WHAT THEY'RE DOING? it seems to me that they are doing nothing but spinning their wheels and going nowhere. There are more pirates than ever before.

Jeez Louise, Jimmy! Why would I help you to inconvenience me? I get to use whatever karaoke files I want to use in my shows without any fear of you showing up and catching me "infringing" on what you claim to have ownership of. I paid for my tracks and will use them in any way I see fit to do so. I'll prove my 1:1 ratio on the day we get into a court room and the judge orders you to pay my legal fees for having to defend myself against your fishing expedition. The Gem series is finally out there in the sharing world and there's nothing you can do about it. They are popping up everywhere and you don't have enough "investigators" to put that Genie back in the bottle. You've been fighting an uphill battle for years now and are still stuck in the mud. If you could put a KJ out of business, you'd probably go after Chip first and he is still laughing in your face on a daily basis and you can't do anything to stop him. Just because you call something a rule; doesn't make it a rule for everyone. You don't get to make the rules. Judges do and so far the judges aren't buying your internet trolling acts.

This isn't how the court system works, first of all.

Second, we're not concerned with the tracks you paid for. We're concerned with the copies you made, if you did make them.



For all the back-and-forth I have with Mr. Staley, the thing about him is that he follows the law and our policies in his karaoke operations. We have no interest in putting him out of business, because he's not violating the law.

We have, however, put hundreds of pirate KJs out of business over the last six-plus years.



Actually, we do get to make the rules under which you can get the permissions you need to do things with our intellectual property, because the law gives us the exclusive right to that intellectual property. The term "exclusive right" means that we can exclude you from the use of our property--and we can make rules that determine whether we exclude you from it, or not.

There are many, many more judges who have "bought" our position, to use your term, than who haven't.

Calling this a "debate" would be deceptively misdescriptive.

Fruitless bickering?
Arguing As A Pasttime?
Contradiction 101?

_________________
DJ Don

Jim, you are equally guilty and accountable for the entire "debate". It takes two (sometimes even 3,,, or 4,,, ahem,,, 'Chris' or others) to argue. It's really getting very irritating and old... Take the hint from jdmeister and stop the "debate".

OK so I finally went to the website and read about the CB registration. Most of it is pretty straight forward. One part that I did not like and would keep me from registering my stuff, (that is if I had a horse in this race), is the fact that if I were to sell my equipment, that I would have to tell them the contact info of the person that I sold it to. Sorry not gonna happen. Chevy doesn't care who I sell my car to and really the state doesn't either that is up to the person buying it. No company cares who I sell my stuff to, so why should anyone tell PEP. Wonder if this includes individual disks? A further fishing expedition for them to find those using CB and go after them.

_________________
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

Thanks for sharing that with us That pretty much leaves me out too!

Yeah, but if that car you sold was involved in an accident or criminal offence, the police will be going to you. If or when they do, I have no doubt you'll tell them who you sold it to. The same goes with IP. In the case of IP, the owner has the authority. People keep confusing criminal law with civil law or copyright and trademark law or digital law.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

You were police, and many people did you arrest for trademarks on their car when they were involved in an accident?

The actual purpose of that requirement is to cover the situation when you transfer a whole system to someone else, solely so that we can update our records to reflect ownership by a different person. In that situation, the purchaser would not be charged to re-register the media, so there's a savings to that person.

But in view of the feedback, we'll remove that requirement.

We don't care whom you sell individual discs to.

Update: I had a friend register Chartbuster Essential 1-6 Super CDG disks and was denied due to FREE registration pertains to 10 or under Regular CD+G and not Super CDG disks.

My question is... why bother to register and pay for pep to know we have them when they are licensed for PC USE already why pay pep anything?

If this was the case, why not just offer "Certification" that I will gladly pay for, but "Registration" come on guys.

They aren't "licensed for PC use." They very clearly state on the front of the disc that they are licensed exclusively for use in CAVS Super CD+G players.

Are you sure? Did you check to see if they even have a trademark associated with them since (if I remember correctly) CAVS sued for breach of contract and fraud. I believe those songs -- even with the trade dress in place and no trademark -- were sold in their entirety to CAVS making it a "CAVS product." (Just like SC selling to Stingray) I noticed this on a trip when a KJ was using one and no logos appeared. That would simply make this a "distribution after the first sale doctrine"... just like the Gem series...

"Super CD+G technology" and "purchased" the discs = "First Sale Doctrine" Just like SC purchasing from FSC Mediaplas
And the only distributor.

This proves you cannot distinguish between criminal, civil, IP law, etc.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Source taken from FAQ Page Cavs website:
http://cavsusa.com/kb/index.php?action=artikel&cat=37&id=205&artlang=en

So now I am in a predicament because I have all my CAVS Super CDG's on my PC and getting two answers:

1) Jim says NO because he owns the trademark
2) CAVS says yes because they own the product and is licensed for PC.
3) KJAMS Karaoke Software reads and plays the CAVS Super cdg Format.

What the hell do I do? the choices...

Jim
i tried to PM you but got no response, i tried to log into pep.rocks and it wont send the activation email (not in spam folder either), sent a question about it through the website and got no response, am i just completely banned from everything?

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens