Karaoke Forums

Nah. Karaoke Version puts out a lot of the newer stuff. PLUS, some areas can still access the UK mfrs.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

someone posted here at one time (can’t remember who) that there’s a work around with Sunfly download process, type your address & type United Kingdom as country, select paypal as payment method and it will go thru. Not that I’ve tried, or have any intention of doing it; I’m not even suggesting. With new karaoke tracks getting harder & harder to obtain – who knows – there might come a day… But no thanks, not gonna make any fraudulent transactions.

_________________
To be fortunate enough to derive an income from a source as fulfilling as karaoke music has got to be as close to heaven as we can get here on earth!

What does any of this have to do with Tricerasoft? Why do you have to turn every thread into an SC bash?

This is not a karaoke license. The reason why I can tell it's not is because the rate is too low, and because it doesn't include sync or lyric display. The rate exactly matches the mechanical license rate in effect at that time, which is set by regulation.

The fact that this license exists does not exclude the possibility of karaoke licensing for this song. It's just not in this license.

It also doesn't prove your point, or disprove mine.

It's not an "SC bash" at all -- SC doesn't exist anymore remember? You can quit playing the victim now. It's simply an example -- a historical example -- how publishers might "license an inch" but manufacturers would take a mile.
This simply proves the point that even though vendors will claim they "are legal" and they "followed all the rules," when it gets right down to it, the KJ's who spend the money are the ones that are being misled. We're told it's "not your business" and to just "trust us" when later we find out it was not the whole truth all along.

Sort of like the Red Peters deal where the karaoke manufacturer (eh, hem) "licensed the song" three YEARS after they released it with no licensing at all. (The date on the license is 2002 but the "karaoke release date" is 1999) And the manufacturer can't claim ignorance or stupidity since the artist wasn't hiding and easily reachable by using ASCAP's "ACE Repertory search." https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx

And I believe this is why publishers have nothing but disdain for most karaoke manufacturers. And also why they are now scrutinizing even the distribution level -like Tricerasoft -- in this business. I think they're fed up with being taken advantage of.
I never said anything about rates did I? I simply stated that the publisher claimed something different and I tend to believe them. Even though it wasn't solicited, the publisher had no problem producing the only license type it had on record.
According to the publisher that sent this license for this song, it is. There were no others that were different -- yet there is a karaoke track... as a matter of fact, there are 8 karaoke tracks with your trademark on each one and only 3 had this type of license that the publisher had on record but you're welcome to call the publisher a liar all you like, who am I to stand in your way?

I think it does. Like you've always reminded us: You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

But getting back on the subject of Tricerasoft and the current actions against them: After reading the 16-page complaint, it's not necessarily a fight over whether or not the organization in Canada for creating digital copies has been paid, (AVLA Audio-Video Licensing Agency Inc) but the nature of what it being shipped cannot be licensed by even that group for karaoke use, here in the USA.

Similar to PEP's complaints of "making an unauthorized copy," it appears as though the publisher in this case, has a problem with the unauthorized creation (by way of copies) of karaoke tracks which require sync and lyric licenses. Therefore, these "karaoke tracks" are in fact, being distributed in the U.S. and for each copy distributed, the sync and lyric licenses have not been secured.

Very similar to the example above where only a mechanical license was located, but no proof that any karaoke licenses were secured which do require negotiated rates that are not compulsory.

Part of a license doesn't constitute "completely licensed" anymore than having a driver's license (operator's license) entitle a driver to operate a taxi (chauffeur's license) or commercial tractor trailer (commercial driver's license). The are different licenses with different requirements and rates.

Let's review:

1. In an attempt to explain how evil karaoke producers are, Mr. Staley posts a wildly inaccurate statement about karaoke licensing.

2. Since I am in a position to know how karaoke licensing actually works, I corrected his statements. (By the way, Tricerasoft's issue has nothing to do with exceeding the number of impressions allowed by a license.)

3. Incensed at being corrected, Mr. Staley then launches into an attack on Sound Choice, accompanied by a heavily redacted copy of a license he claims is a karaoke license that includes a cap on impressions (while also accusing me of lying about SC not having been able to do karaoke downloads).

4. When I point out that the license is obviously a mechanical license and not a karaoke license, he claims that I'm lying, and that this unnamed publisher, whom he refuses to name and who supposedly sent him this license agreement "unsolicited," says it's the only license on record.

(I'm wondering how that works. Did they pull his name out of the phone book and say, "hey, I think this guy would like a copy of a random license"?)

All of this in a thread that has ZERO to do with SC at all. I am happy to respond to his points and his personal attacks all day long--and it will likely take that long because he says so many things that are incorrect or false--but there is a time and a place for it, and I'm pretty sure most of the people on this board are tired of it.

Sez you.
No, you haven't "corrected" anything, you simply shared your opinion. And you are correct: the current action against Tricerasoft is NOT about "exceeding the number of impressions allowed by a license," it's about securing the proper type of license in the first place. (did you read even the complaint?)
I didn't accuse you of lying did I? I simply said that your opinion (and that's all it is) is not the one that I believe. You're not the victim here... you can stop acting like one.

No, they did not pull my "name out of the phone book" at all and I did not ask them for a copy of any licenses, period. I was simply following your advice that a KJ needs to do all they can to insure that their operations are within the letter of the law and since you weren't willing to prove that SC's material was licensed, I was forced to investigate for myself. After all, you want all the KJ's in the world to be "legal" right? Your own gem license requires that KJ's obtain "all the permissions" they need. But if doing what you suggest reflects badly on you, you play the part of the victim... again. Dizzying whiplash.
The historical events about SC is just an example of one of the reasons I believe publishers have gotten fed up with (and why they are striking back) everyone who distributes karaoke tracks. I'm pretty sick of hearing you as some downtrodden victim too.

<snip> <snip> <snip>

Please leave moderation to the mods.

and yes SC is up and running again..............

Yes, and I speak with authority on this subject, because negotiating those licenses is part of my job.



Yes, I read the complaint.



The only victim here is your reputation.

But while we're on the subject, you did actually accuse me of lying:



This is a good example of where you "quote" me saying something I didn't say, "disproving" the "quote," and calling me a liar.

I never said that SC has never been able to provide downloadable songs.

What I did say is that the music publishers were historically unwilling to license us to provide permanent downloads that could be used commercially. They were willing to license subscriptions on a revenue-share basis--meaning that the KJ would have to pay ongoing royalties to the publisher, which we thought would be an accounting nightmare that wasn't worth it--or they were willing to license for non-commercial use only, which is how the Karaoke Channel got started.

The license you linked to, despite your efforts to hide the truth through cropping and redaction, is easily identified as a mechanical license for a sound recording only. (This is commonly known as a "Harry Fox" license, named for the agency that historically handled the administration of almost all of those licenses. They are compulsory; that is, the publisher cannot decline to issue the license, and the rate is specified in the statute--but the license still has to be in writing, which is what that document is.) That might well be the only license a publisher has on file, even for a karaoke track, because in September 2007 we were obtaining licensed product from the UK, via licenses issued by MCPS. In fact, I would go so far as to say that's probable.



That would make sense...if you were actually using our products. But you weren't and aren't. So you weren't "forced to investigate for [yourself]." You were digging for dirt on Sound Choice. I'm not sure why you can't admit it, except that doing so would put expose your actions as driven by a vendetta against us--and that would reflect badly on you.



The "historical" events you're referring to aren't actually factual. What you were doing was trying to score points against us by casting us as some nefarious organization that routinely exceeds the scope of licenses, which is not true, with the most tenuous of connections. (You do this, in one form or another, in almost every thread you comment on.) You don't have the full picture, but your emotional response to what you think we did to you prevents you from recognizing that you don't know all the facts and probably never will, because your opinion about things does not matter.

As for Tricerasoft, I am pretty sure that Sony/EMI sued Tricerasoft because Sony/EMI believed that Tricerasoft was exceeding the scope of the LOML+ license issued by MCPS for downloads. The judge agreed with Sony/EMI and issued an injunction. (Note, by the way, that Sony/EMI did not even ask for an injunction in our case. Since you're so good at speculating, perhaps you can try to figure out why that is.)

This is the last time I'm going to be bothered with your ridiculous whining:

How does make you an "authority?" You were in on the entire Gem series creation..and yet, your organization was sued for copyright infringement. (yes, PEP was added as a defendant when Slep tanked SC). So, for being "an authority" I think that reputation is a tad on the "tarnished" side.
And here it is.... Obviously, they are not "unwilling" because there is one in black and white.

According to the publisher, that is not correct: They have 3 licenses on file, but 8 karaoke songs were made (on the red label) so that leaves 5 licenses completely unaccounted for. No mechanical, no nothing. None of this artist's songs are on your gem series so it wasn't licensed overseas. And even I wouldn't have paid for a license in the U.S. if I intended on licensing in the U.K. just to haul them back here for sale.

Nice back-paddle spin, but no cigar.
How do you know when I contacted this publisher? Were you there? Whether I was using SC material or not is truly irrelevant, I still own the product and am liable when it's played in a commercial venue, but it was your suggestion to KJ's to make these verifications in order to stay legal because remember when you were asked, all we got was "we're not obligated to tell you anything" and "you should do your own checking." Now that it's turned out that checking is really not favorable to your reputation, you're whining because someone took you up on your own suggestion? Really? WHARRGGLBLLL!

And just who would I be "scoring points" with? And to what end would I be "scoring points?" There's no cheese down that tunnel even when you try to invent some. But since you opened the door on "routinely exceeds the scope of licenses" one only has to look at the records: I've never been sued for copyright infringement but your organization (by your words) are the "authority and copyright experts" that have been sued a number of times for hundreds of songs.

Mighty high horse you're riding...

"Pretty sure" is called speculation but I'll take your word that you know more about "exceeding limitations" than anyone else I know.

I know exactly why, but I'll "speculate" that it was bound to have appeared by the time of the trial. I'm sure that it was a motivating factor in the final settlement.

Now, I would appreciate it if you'd get back to the subject at hand.

Promise?



Anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything. Being sued does not mean you did anything wrong.



Are you slow? The license in question IS NOT FOR KARAOKE. It's for a sound recording without any video component.



Bless your heart, you think the only songs we ever licensed overseas were the GEM series.

I don't have the numbers at hand, but there were many, many discs that were licensed overseas, well before the GEM series was even conceived. You can tell which ones they are, because they say "Produced by FSC Mediaplas" right there on the face.

The license you posted was for downloadable sound recordings, which are an entirely different product.



Do I know the exact day when you contacted them? No. But I do know that you stopped using our product before I made the suggestion you claimed to have been relying on. And, by the way, the checking produced a result that's just fine for our reputation, because the license we had with whatever company that was was for a NON-KARAOKE PRODUCT.

Just admit that your purpose wasn't to protect yourself, but to try to dig up dirt on us.



You're desperate to destroy us. Just look at what you say about us. Look at the lies you tell about us. Look at your ginned-up criticisms. Look at how you turn every thread you participate in into a negative comment about us.

As for the suits, let's look at that. Historically, we released more 16,500 unique tracks, spread over thousands of discs, plus the Karaoke Channel, digital ringtones, film & TV licensing, and non-karaoke sound recordings. Through all of that activity, you can count the number of suits against us on two hands (with fingers left over) and the number of judgments against us on one finger (with one finger left over). If you're as slow as you seem, I'll make that explicit: ZERO JUDGMENTS. That's the number that matters.



You know "exactly" why?

Here's exactly why: Getting a preliminary injunction requires four things...(1) A showing of a likelihood of success on the merits of your case, (2) a showing that you are suffering irreparable injury that would be prevented by the injunction, (3) a showing that, on balance, it is more fair to grant the injunction than not (the so-called "balancing the equities"), and (4) a showing that public policy favors granting the injunction.

It's not easy to get a judge to grant a preliminary injunction, and it's a lot of work to prepare a grantable motion for one. But if the expected damages are high enough and the case is strong, you ask for one because it puts enormous pressure on the defendant to settle.

Now, we don't normally ask for preliminary injunctions in our ordinary cases, because the amount of the damages at stake doesn't justify the amount of work required. We do usually ask for PIs in our hard drive cases, because we aren't especially interested in damages so much as in stopping the distribution.

But what about when the damages are significant enough, or the harm is significant enough, that the amount of work is justified? Sony's case against Tricerasoft is a really big case--they're looking for a lot in damages, and they are also highly interested in stopping distribution. Plus, Sony knew whether or not it had issued sufficient licenses to Tricerasoft to cover what Tricerasoft was doing, so they had to feel pretty good about the likelihood of success on the merits.

In a big case, where injunctive relief is on the table, there's really only one reason not to ask for a PI, and that's that you don't believe you can show a likelihood of success on the merits.

Regardless of how ridiculous, frivolous, or merit-less it is, there will be a lawyer somewhere that will take the case. Right and wrong is trumped by money and backed up by the flimsiest of legal arguments.

Basically throw as many wads of wet toilet paper on the ceiling and hope something sticks or overloads and frustrates the court system. Seen it destroy innocents many times.

_________________
Purple Frog Karaoke Cuz we all feel odd and love to "croak"

And it needs to change because it because it is helping to destroy the country!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

WHARRRGABLLLLL!

The number that "REALLY matters" is the number of SETTLEMENT CHECKS that have been written.... Because without the settlement checks, there's a good chance there would be a judgment, so let's not pretend that everyone is as stupid as you wish they were.

Go ahead and try to convince me that just because you skirted a number of judgments with a number of settlement checks that you're somehow pure as the driven snow.

Every single pirate KJ, technical infringer KJ that bought the product and unknowing venue that has ponied up thousands of dollars over all the "vexatious" lawsuits you've filed for the last 6 years have had ZERO JUDGMENTS TOO. And I'll bet that's the numbers that "really matter" to you.

And your "one finger left over" is the one you've been giving the karaoke industry.

(I'm purposely ignoring the rest of the crap you posted above, because.... that's all it is.)

We have dozens of judgments against KJs and venues, and not just defaults either.

Good deflection, but it's not about them. It's about your firm and your client's former firm.

You're supposedly the "experts and authority" on IP law right? I would think that with those credentials, even being suspected of infringing actions would highly unlikely.... But between the two of you, there have been a number of infringement lawsuits for hundreds of songs over the years.

And not a single one (your "zero judgments") was ever completed. In each case, there was a $ettlement to avoid the possible - and most likely probable - consequences of a trial.

I can only wonder what would have happened if you and your client hadn't been afraid to go to trial..

You can keep saying that, but it won't make it true.

Are you two married??

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

It would seem!

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