|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
Rockrz
|
 Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 7:00 am |
|
 |
| Major Poster |
 |
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 pm
Posts: 70
Location: I'm right here!
Been Liked: 1 time
|
Lonman wrote: So if the audit is simply to clear up if you actually own each disc that you shifted to hard drive, it would stand to reason to audit to make sure one owned each disc that they shifted to cdr. And, how do "they" accomplish forcing a KJ in to an audit? Do they get a court order er something? Just curious on how an audit would come about in the first place.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
DannyG2006
|
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 7:46 am |
|
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 5405
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 407 times
|
Paradigm Karaoke wrote: chrisavis wrote: I wish EVERY company would go after pirates. I am stymied as to why none of the others seem to care. I have given this a lot of thought and I have never come up with any rational explanation for why they don't care to protect their IP. It would only take a few of the bigger powerhouse companies like Pioneer and Sony taking action to turn the tide.
-Chris no one in Universal Music group cares? i doubt that highly. it is like why doesnt Microsoft come to the venues and sue us all for using windows until we prove we own the disc? it doesnt make sense to do that and every other music entity in the world figured that out. MrBoo wrote: It's pretty easy to see why when you look at the record companies' past. They tried to "sue piracy into submission". What they got from it was a huge black eye on their reputation. Know anyone else currently with a big ole shiner? What they decided was to make paying for their product easier than stealing it. And all indications point to; IT WORKED! Do people still pirate their stuff. SURE!! But in the end they have a good name, great product and great delivery system without the black eye or the cost to get it. I feel strongly (Beware, opinion to follow) that many of the other karaoke producers are following that model. Make it easier to buy than steal and let others worry about the piracy.
I also feel strongly (Beware, opinion II to follow) that nothing about Sound Choice's financial status can be derived from whether they are making new music or not. The reason I feel strongly about this is because I sense that Kurt is so up tight about piracy that he would rather not make anything new if there is a chance it will fall into a pirates hands. It's my opinion (#III) that you can add one more thing that is certain in life. There is death, there is taxes and there will be piracy. I don't condone it but I will live with it. It's further my opinion (#IV) that Kurt will never be able to put out anything if he sits and waits for the perfect Pirate killer program. Meanwhile, others are being quite successful it seems with doing their thing and pretty much living with it. my thoughts exactly. MIcrosoft has built in a program that verifies the OS that the computer is running is genuine if not it gives you time to rectify before shutting the computer down.
_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
doowhatchulike
|
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 8:38 am |
|
|
| Super Poster |
 |
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:35 am
Posts: 752
Images: 1
Been Liked: 73 times
|
DannyG2006 wrote: Paradigm Karaoke wrote: chrisavis wrote: I wish EVERY company would go after pirates. I am stymied as to why none of the others seem to care. I have given this a lot of thought and I have never come up with any rational explanation for why they don't care to protect their IP. It would only take a few of the bigger powerhouse companies like Pioneer and Sony taking action to turn the tide.
-Chris no one in Universal Music group cares? i doubt that highly. it is like why doesnt Microsoft come to the venues and sue us all for using windows until we prove we own the disc? it doesnt make sense to do that and every other music entity in the world figured that out. MrBoo wrote: It's pretty easy to see why when you look at the record companies' past. They tried to "sue piracy into submission". What they got from it was a huge black eye on their reputation. Know anyone else currently with a big ole shiner? What they decided was to make paying for their product easier than stealing it. And all indications point to; IT WORKED! Do people still pirate their stuff. SURE!! But in the end they have a good name, great product and great delivery system without the black eye or the cost to get it. I feel strongly (Beware, opinion to follow) that many of the other karaoke producers are following that model. Make it easier to buy than steal and let others worry about the piracy.
I also feel strongly (Beware, opinion II to follow) that nothing about Sound Choice's financial status can be derived from whether they are making new music or not. The reason I feel strongly about this is because I sense that Kurt is so up tight about piracy that he would rather not make anything new if there is a chance it will fall into a pirates hands. It's my opinion (#III) that you can add one more thing that is certain in life. There is death, there is taxes and there will be piracy. I don't condone it but I will live with it. It's further my opinion (#IV) that Kurt will never be able to put out anything if he sits and waits for the perfect Pirate killer program. Meanwhile, others are being quite successful it seems with doing their thing and pretty much living with it. my thoughts exactly. MIcrosoft has built in a program that verifies the OS that the computer is running is genuine if not it gives you time to rectify before shutting the computer down. That is, of course, only if you take the computer online after installation... 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 8:45 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
doowhatchulike wrote: That is, of course, only if you take the computer online after installation... Certain software/hardware changes can force the activation process to trip and require it to be re-activated. That can be done over the phone or over the internet. -Chris
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 1:08 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
Rockrz wrote: And, how do "they" accomplish forcing a KJ in to an audit?
Do they get a court order er something?
Just curious on how an audit would come about in the first place. If you do not submit to one yourself and pay the audit fee, then they can name you in a lawsuit and you can now pay a lot more for the audit to cover the court costs. So it's cheaper and easier to just submit. But as stated by others, only SC & Digitrax/Chartbuster are the main ones to worry about a lawsuit - at least at this time. I'd like to see the other manus jump on board to help weed out the thieves. _________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 10:41 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
Lonman wrote: Rockrz wrote: And, how do "they" accomplish forcing a KJ in to an audit?
Do they get a court order er something?
Just curious on how an audit would come about in the first place. If you do not submit to one yourself and pay the audit fee, then they can name you in a lawsuit and you can now pay a lot more for the audit to cover the court costs. So it's cheaper and easier to just submit. . That is, of course, if SC proves it's accusations and wins in court- which doesn't seem to happen very often. Education is the key. If one takes the time, one will understand that it is NOT always "cheaper to submit, #1 If SC can't prove it's case in court, then as in the case of Taka-O, THEY have to lay out the big bucks. #2 The audit agreement document would not be signed by anyone with any business (or common) sense. Read it, show it to your legal counsel, and you will know why. Unfortunately, misery loves company, and most who have laid down for an audit now tell everyone how wonderful it was. I believe this to be in defense of an action that never should have been taken......
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Rockrz
|
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:21 pm |
|
|
| Major Poster |
|
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 pm
Posts: 70
Location: I'm right here!
Been Liked: 1 time
|
I just found out that the religious tracks SC has produced are exempt from copyright protection if used in a religious service, under US Copyright Law section 110[3]... This actually goes for the live performance of anything the is protected under US Copyright Law... so, I'm surprised more bars aren't claiming to be churches and KJs claiming to be preachers!  It's possible since most anything passes for religion these days. Who's gonna start the First Church of Karaoke??? 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:39 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
|
Trademark is not copyright. SC can still sue for trademark infringement on their religious line.
_________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Rockrz
|
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:29 am |
|
|
| Major Poster |
|
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 pm
Posts: 70
Location: I'm right here!
Been Liked: 1 time
|
|
Even if that were true, all you'd have to do is not use the Sound Choice name or Logo and you would not being using anything they have trademarked.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:16 am |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
Rockrz wrote: Even if that were true, all you'd have to do is not use the Sound Choice name or Logo and you would not being using anything they have trademarked. That is another option. Some kj's get along just fine without SC. Now the ones around here that don't have SC, their singers look for other kj's that do. I know I've picked up several singers that dropped SC. _________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Rockrz
|
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:45 am |
|
|
| Major Poster |
|
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 pm
Posts: 70
Location: I'm right here!
Been Liked: 1 time
|
|
Without their name or logo being used, their tracks could be used in a religious service free from any copyright claims by them or whoever owns the music and lyrics, although the lyrics cannot be shown on the big screen for all to see.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:22 am |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
 |
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
Rockrz wrote: Without their name or logo being used, their tracks could be used in a religious service free from any copyright claims by them or whoever owns the music and lyrics, although the lyrics cannot be shown on the big screen for all to see. Considering that there is no public performance right in sound recordings (without the video component), calling it a "religious service" is superfluous as to whoever owns the sound recording. That being said, the religious service exception applies only to works of a religious nature, not just anything. Non-religious works still require a public performance license.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Rockrz
|
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:48 am |
|
|
| Major Poster |
|
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 pm
Posts: 70
Location: I'm right here!
Been Liked: 1 time
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: That being said, the religious service exception applies only to works of a religious nature, not just anything. Non-religious works still require a public performance license. It includes secular music according to US Copyright Law section 110[3], not just religious music. Churches do sometimes use secular music and even movies and they are exempt. On the religious note... I wonder what islamic karaoke would sound like
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:24 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
Rockrz wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote: That being said, the religious service exception applies only to works of a religious nature, not just anything. Non-religious works still require a public performance license. It includes secular music according to US Copyright Law section 110[3], not just religious music. Churches do sometimes use secular music and even movies and they are exempt. On the religious note... I wonder what islamic karaoke would sound like Whether the statute covers non-religious musical works is actually a question on which there are no reported decisions, and the legislative history is not exactly clear on the point.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:25 am |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
|
The phrase "moot point" comes to mind.....
There's a whole lot of things that I don't like about SC's methodology, but even I don't think you'll see them suing for the use of religious music.
Heck, even if they did (I truly believe they wouldn't- really) a couple of calls to the public media with the story would probably solve the problem....
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:16 am |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: The phrase "moot point" comes to mind.....
There's a whole lot of things that I don't like about SC's methodology, but even I don't think you'll see them suing for the use of religious music.
Heck, even if they did (I truly believe they wouldn't- really) a couple of calls to the public media with the story would probably solve the problem.... If it were a religious service, no, of course not, and we've had that inquiry before, and dealt with it collaboratively. The post was referring to calling a regular karaoke show a religious service, when it plainly is not, and that wouldn't work.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 137 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
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
