Karaoke Forums

Generally speaking, if the only point that is made on a consistent basis is one that does not seem to have the consumer in mind at all, it just seems a bit out of kilter, so I guess that is why I feel compelled to point it out from time to time. Emotional responses, such as anger, to situations like this, are not a consideration on my part at all...it would be a waste of energy. I didn't realize it was necessary, but, for the record, my definition of a consumer includes the legitimate component; I would consider the other kind more of a scavenger...

Also, do not construe my misspelling of the word LEECH to be a faux pas, that being LEACH (which, incidentally, in verb form can be defined as "to drain" so in using this term in context, grammatically should have been LEACHER, or as in ROBIN LEACH, to say that anyone is trying to lead the Lifestyle Of The Rich And Famous)......but it is kind of funny......

Go lobby congress to give you (karaoke companies) the same right to compensation that the RIAA has with the 4 licensing agencies.

Please Harrington, tell me how that is not a solution?

Harrington Law, I'm coming down on the side of Sound Choice is this instance, you are in business to make money, don't apologize for that. There doesn't have to be an altruistic reason to be in business. Pure capitalism is what has made this country great and I have no problem with your company making money.

After reading my comments you may use some type of smelling salts to revive yourself if needed.

Leaving aside the obvious problem of getting anything substantive through this Congress...

The RIAA--Recording Industry Association of America--and its members do not receive compensation through ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or Harry Fox. Music publishers do, sure. But the recording artists and the record labels that finance them make money by selling records, just as SC does. That's why the RIAA's members had to sue to try to recoup losses associated with file sharing.

So, we're already where you seem to think we should be, which makes that not much of a solution.

I did not make an analogy. I asked a question to Smoothedge69 to his over-generalized statement.

Sorry...I gave some credit for a situation that I determined was understood, since posing the question of a specific example of a possible exception to a given scenario DOES fall under the guise of an analogy. Also, since this is a discussion forum, and there wasn't a direct request for a response from any specific person (and I certainly do not have access to anyone's PM files...), I determined that I was within the forum decorum (heh heh, that rhymes) to respond...

Oops......

I don't know if "organized crime" would be accurate. However, I believe that a company that does not contribute in any way to it's defined industry yet attempts so derive an income from it may be defined as a "parasite".

Add to that several statements posted by Jim as SC's rep that have been called out and proven false- sometimes in court - and said company may possibly be described as an unethical parasite.

However, I do not know if there is anything illegal about tbese practices, so "organized crime" may well be inaccurate.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Just because it's not new 'material' as far as new songs, doesn't mean it's not new product.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

What is it then re-packaged, recycled product? The point is everyone who wants it has what ever SC material there is available either legally or illegally obtained. That the only way for SC to continue in business is to use the legal system to try and pressure the illegal owners of the product into paying off SC. To answer Joe's question if this is criminal activity itself, you have to look at how it has been described by a third party. CAVS called what SC is doing legal racketeering, selling protection for a product that they don't own the underlying copyrighted material. That is why EMI is suing SC they didn't even pay the proper fees to produce some of their product, which makes them guilty of piracy themselves. Where the host is not reselling the stolen material SC is.

Wow. Now you're just making up an alternate reality to fit your own narrative. When you put that in writing, it's usually called "libel."

Slep-Tone v Chartreuse, ( If that's his REAL name ), libel case?

Now that would be fun to watch play out!

_________________
-- Mark

GEM is a product. It may not be a well thought out product but it is a product.

I don't think you are where you should be. How much lobbying have you done to date? How about asking ASCAP/BMI/SESAC/SoundExchange for help?

I'd probably shoot for SE since they're well versed in things regarding internet and pirate streaming.

Edit: Ah hell, forgot to uncheck disable bb code.

I assume you mean this if you had not been called out, not had statements shown as incorrect, and not had any courts feel you had insufficient
documentation of allegations.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

I have no idea what you're attempting to say, but it's pretty different from what you said before.

You have accused me of posting false statements on this website and making false statements in court.

That accusation is false, and you know it's false.

You have also asserted that those statements had been proven false, by being "called out" on this website and--sometimes--proven false in court.

That assertion is false, and you know it's false.

Because I challenged you, you've backed away in a subtle way. There is a long way between "had courts feel you had insufficient documentation of allegations" and having those allegations "proven false in court." Being unable to prove--to the satisfaction of the court--that something occurred, and making an outright false statement (that is proven false in court) are two WILDLY different things.

That difference is important, because it makes one of them true and one of them false. The one that's false is not just false, it's defamatory, because it accuses me of dishonesty.

I am really quite tired of being lectured on ethics by someone who obviously has none to speak of. Ethical people don't make false statements they know to be false. You should be ashamed, but you won't be.

I'm done talking with you about this matter, and frankly about any matter. Fortunately, there's an ignore button on this forum, and it's about to get pushed.

Well either way Harrington,

I heard you guys are finally coming to my area. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor, but be prepared for legal backlash.

Curious, will you be filing against google/youtube?

What a head in the sand type move that is, Jimbo. You don't like what Joe has to say to you, so you put him on ignore?? Never knew you to be a chicken!! Maybe a bit full of it, but never a chicken.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I hope SC gets nowhere in your area!! I hope they don't get a DIME from your area or any area from now on. I hope they end up either HAVING to produce new music, or they end up forced to close their doors!! Those that work for them will find other jobs. They will be just fine.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Organized, but a crime? Only if you lose your house..

Wells Fargo probed, and not by "Aliens".

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-0 ... probe.html