Karaoke Forums

You're right and I'm wrong. I misspoke. Karaoke Express was actually being sued, but SC ( among others) is named as an "unlicensed brand, and a list of 171 songs that they produced, allegedly without permission or licensing from the publishers/owners was supplied.

My error. I have edited my post to show the correction.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Right & Harrington claims that these songs are in fact licensed. So I guess we'll see!

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

This is still not correct.

SC was not "named as an unlicensed brand," nor was there any specific allegation that SC produced those songs without permission or licensing. I realize this is a technical point, but there are several ways that the tracks KE sold could have been unlicensed through absolutely no fault of SC. I would have preferred that Warner be a bit more specific in their allegations, but since SC is not a defendant in the lawsuit, there is little that we can do about it.

Per the documentation Case 3:12-cv-00512 Document 1-16 Filed 05/21/12, page 1 of 16:

Exhibit "16"
to
Complaint For Injunction And Damages

Warner/Chappell Music, Inc, Et Al.
v.
Karaokexpress, Et Al.

( Plaintiff's copyrights bearing the unlicensed "Sound Choice" brand and appearing on expresskaraoke.com and/or karaokexpress.com)

I don't know how else it could be read. They are claiming that Sound Choice is an unlicensed brand, which would imply that the list of 171 songs supplied would have been produced without license or permission.

Unless I'm misunderstanding it, they seem to be basing their case against Karaoke Express on the distribution of unlicensed tracks. In other words, it looks like if W/C thought the tracks were licensed, they would not be going after KE. The case revolves around the licensing or the lack thereof, even though SC is not named in this particular suit.

What would be another way to read it?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Maybe they were making reproductions and selling them - possibly custom discs? Therefore those would be unlicensed.

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

Could well be. They could also have been selling product with expired licensing. I don't know.

The point was that W/C DID claim that the 171 SC tracks were unlicensed, despite Jim's claim to the contrary.

What the licensing problems actually were are known only to SC, KE, and W/C.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I only picked like 20 songs on the SC list and those were all on the custom site. They do not state which brand they are selling there so still no proof.

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

I made no such claim. Please stop paraphrasing me.

Warner's claim is that KE distributed unlicensed SC tracks. They say nothing at all about why they think those tracks are unlicensed. There are many reasons why a track might be considered unlicensed that gave nothing to do with SC's licensing. Stop referring to SC as an "unlicensed brand." It's not.

1) I didn't paraphrase. I quote from your post: "SC was not "named as an unlicensed brand," nor was there any specific allegation that SC produced those songs without permission or licensing"

2) I am not making the referrance, the suit that I was discussing did, per your own statement above: "Warner's claim is that KE distributed unlicensed SC tracks." Please stop attributing the statements of others to me. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

What is wrong is your statement of an implication. There is no such implication. The brand they are displaying, i.e. the Sound Choice brand, is not licensed to be displayed. Nothing about the song.


You are misunderstanding it. And mis-stating it. Neither of which, sadly, is uncommon. In fact it is so common you make many statements which are utter hogwash which through sheer fatigue are never called out. Many of them do not matter. This one amounts to an accusation of wrongdoing, one which we are getting sick of seeing inserted into topic after topic, thread after thread, with little justification.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

If you had read the thread prior to chastising Joe, your response would actually match the conversation. But alas, it doesn’t make sense at all.
This discussion is not about a lawsuit over trademark display.
The lawsuit referenced in this thread is one in which a publisher (Warner/Chappell) is suing distributors (Bertrand Music and Stellar Records) for “distributing unlicensed recordings of the plaintiff’s music copyrights” (line item number 13 in the complaint).

Page 10 line item 31 lists 24 karaoke brand names that are identified by the plaintiff as “unlicensed brands” one of those happens to be soundchoice.
This is a fact.
The link to the complaint is in the first post on this thread for you to read.
Joe has not implied it, the plaintiff has.

Your efforts to correct Joe here seem to be nothing more than a “red herring” as you are attributing things to Joe that simply are not true but designed to give the impression they are. Shame on you.




Read the complaint and inform yourself. Joe has it exactly right.
Your comment appears to be another “red herring” designed to distract from the truth so you can make some sort of statement about how sick you are of hearing about the topic we are discussing right here in the only section of the forum we are allowed to discuss it so it can be hidden from the public view.
Shame on you.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Is the plaintiff suing Sound Choice? The plaintiff is stating that Sound Choice is a brand. It is nowhere stating that Sound Choice, the company, is failing to license music. It might be implying that if it was suing Sound Choice.

Joe even states "the implication is". No, the implication is not. The Sound Choice brand as sold by the distributor is unlicensed. In other words, the distributor has sold the music copied, not on original media. Sound Choice didn't fail to license the music. Nowhere did it state that Sound Choice illegally produced music. It being an "unlicensed brand" as a general statement is ridiculous on the face of it. Sound Choice is a well known brand, definitely has executed many license agreements, and has sued people to defend the license. But in fact, they never stated it was an "unlicensed brand". They stated that there was the sale of music of the "unlicensed Sound Choice brand". It was a brand, it was sold, but it was not licensed to be sold. Big difference.

Again, I don't particularly feel the need to defend Sound Choice. They can do that themselves. What I am doing is defending this forum, so that the same three implied topics don't dominate it.

Go ahead, bring up the topic of Sound Choice and whether it licenses its music. Talk about it all you want in a thread titled such. You will find that no one is censoring anything.

Just don't bring it up or attempt to turn another topic in that direction every chance you get. It doesn't matter if you think it is important, it doesn't matter how much you want to talk about it in every topic. It isn't going to be allowed.

What Joe is doing is exactly the same thing that he has done many times before. He finds some way to insiinuate and accuse Sound Choice of failing to license music.

This is the place to talk about the suit. But in absence of 1) a suit against Sound Choice, or 2) a direct statement that Sound Choice has failed to license music with copyrights owned by someone, it is an unjustified statement. And it is the latest in a long line of cases where Joe and others have made that insinuation, driving the base thread off topic.


My comment has to do with the constant push of the topic toward one discussion. The discussion here is the suit, not whether Sound Choice has licensed all of its music. Yet as usual, that accusation is made.

And as far as what you are saying, you simply misunderstand. Nowhere does it state that Sound Choice has failed to license music. It states that Sound Choice branded music was sold in some way, shape, or form such that it wasn't licensed. It was not on a Sound Choice disk, and Sound Choice received no revenue in the chain. So you, and Joe, are simply wrong. If it wasn't the fifteenth time Joe had brought up the same thing, it might be seen as a forgivable and understandable mistake.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

You quoted Joe, and then referenced those quotes in an effort to discredit Joe.
My response was in direct reference to yours and I used the exact quotes to prove my point.
I would expect a forum moderator to understand the usage of quotations within a discussion to reference a specific point.
Nowhere in the quotes you used from Joe does he imply that soundchoice is in itself an unlicensed brand. You are unfairly attributing that to him when it just isn’t true.
For you to start expanding your attack on Joe with irrelevant quotes is a “red herring”.
If your burning desire is to attack Joe, then please respect the readers enough to offer relevant and actual evidence.

Now you are offering another “red herring” to distract from what you actually said as you rearrange and reframe your argument rather than apologize for your initial wrong and move on.

In the hope of illustrating my point, I will break down your last comment in the classic style of C.Staley:

Starting with your original accusation:

What is wrong with your statement here is it shows no knowledge of the case we are discussing. “Not licensed to be displayed?” “Not about the song?”
This suit is all about the songs. The Plaintiff submitted lists of hundreds of songs that the Plaintiff claims to be unlicensed and in violation of their copyrights. This is not a soundchoice suit, so displaying anything is not a part of the suit. Had you read the conversation before attacking Joe you would have known that.



The plaintiff is not suing soundchoice. The plaintiff is suing a distributor for selling unlicensed music on the soundchoice brand among many other brands.



Here you seemed to have reserved for yourself the right to do exactly what you are claiming Joe has done.
You are implying that the only basis for the suit is that the defendant is copying music and selling it not on original media.
While the complaint does make a claim that seems to back up your interpretation, they also make statements that back up the statements and questions raised by Joe.


The plaintiff refers to all of the brands including Chartbuster as “unlicensed brands” yet Chartbuster is the only brand in which they clarify the specific conditions under which they were unlicensed. This is done again when the Plaintiff asks for relief;

This time however, the chartbuster brand is held immune from this relief because of the proper licensing now in place. In fact, the Chartbuster brand is excluded from their pray for relief in items c, d, e, and f.
The clear implication made in this lawsuit is that Chartbuster resolved the licensing issues in 2010, while all of the other brands listed including soundchoice still have licensing issues that are unresolved with the songs in the list.
The fact that the Plaintiff is asking for the return and recall of all material except the Chartbuster branded stuff actually works against your theory that the unlicensed soundchoice brand is labeled unlicensed because it was copied from an original. If that were the case they would want the chartbuster stuff recalled too.




Soundchoice was named in that suit as an unlicensed brand concerning the Plaintiff’s property rights. An entire exibit of songs owned by the Plaintiff and branded as soundchoice are part of that suit. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it irrelevant to the discussion. You are simply throwing up another “red herring” here.




Another “red herring.” How do you know soundchoice received no revenue in the chain?
Again you are reserving for yourself a right you seek to deny Joe.

I think everyone should be allowed to offer opinions and even speculation such as yours.
It is the differences of opinion and the interpretations of others offered here that help flush out the truth.
Silencing those voices will only give us one perspective and often that is the perspective of someone who chooses not be completely honest with us because they want something from us.

Sometimes the voices you seek to silence have worthwhile insight that takes awhile to be revealed…

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Now we can discuss to our hearts content whether Sound Choice, in particular, among 20 brands named in a suit, is an "unlicensed brand". Meanwhile, back in the original thread, the suit itself can be discussed.

No one is trying to stifle discussion on a particular topic. The point is -- don't make Sound Choice the topic when it is not. If you want to make Sound Choice the topic? Go right ahead. Here it is.

And the next time anyone picks Sound Choice out of the barrel to make it the topic in another thread where it isn't the topic, the same thing will happen. Unless topics or posters start to disappear due to a continuing tendency to do the same thing over and over again.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Is EVERYONE paying attention to the THREATS going on here???

1) Nope. W/C couldn't care less about the brand (logo) display- it's not theirs to care about- the music is.


2) AGAIN: I have made no accusation at all. please re-read the posts. It was W/C that made the accusation. I made absolutely no claims in regard to how truthful they are- for good reason. As previously stated, but ignored, I said that I don't KNOW how truthful they are. Only SC, W/C, and KE do.


Also, I never stated that "the implication is" in the context that you discribed. What I said was although the suit is against the distributor, the case revolves around the licensing- or possible lack thereof- the music by the mfrs. Except for the one UNINTENTIONAL error, which I admitted to, apologized for, and corrected, no one claimed that the mfrs. were being sued. I also agreed with Lon that Karaoke Express could have been making custom discs without licensing, and even added that they could have been selling product with expired licensing.

No one knows. What I DID say was that the suit against Karaoke Express initiated "implies" unlicensed tracks.

I also said that only SC, W/C, and KE know what the licensing difficulties really are.

The ONLY ones claiming licensing issues are Warner/Chappell (with the inclusion of 171 tracks by SC)- not ME.

Also, this is not limited to SC. They include- in THEIR suit against KARAOKE EXPRESS ( NOT against any mfrs.), the same allegations in regard to 924 CB tracks, 573 Pocket Songs tracks, as well as other mfrs..

BTW- Please note the question mark at the end of the thread title. This indicates a request for an answer or information- it does NOT indicate a statement of either fact or opinion.

Also, although I am known for my stance vis a vis Sound Choice, I did not choose the mfr. for personal purposes. SC seems to be the one mfr. for which we have the most available information.

Additionally, we have their representative here on the forum. Though Jim and I remain on opposite sides of a rather heated debate, I still find the information that he takes the time to share extremely valuable. I was guessing that whatever the facts are in regard to Sound Choice, chances are they applied to the other mfrs. as well.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

No threats were made???? Where is that coming from?

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

Well, obviously you are, simply because you obviously don't like the opposing view! That's clear to anyone with eyes in their heads.
How on earth can you even say that?
SC is part and parcel of the topic at hand. They are INCLUDED in the paperwork of the lawsuit in question, and now you're saying we can't discuss that portion of it because you feel some need to keep everything completely "on topic" (which it IS)? Please define "on topic" for me, because I'm clearly having trouble reconciling my definition with yours. I kind of looked at these forums as more like a conversation between several people, which will naturally wander and meander to side topics and perhaps wander back on the original topic again, or perhaps not.
You don't hear people conversing in real life and then someone suddenly jumping up and shouting, "Hey! You're off topic. Stay on topic or I won't talk anymore.".
Do you REALLY want us to start a new topic for every single aside?
Seriously???

Just because it states it, doesn't mean that the actual song from SC is unlicensed, just that they (those listed) are distributing unlicensed versions - possible copies from what a few have stated they received from those very vendors. Harrington has stated every song listed was/is licensed, so don't jump to conclusions. Just don't bring it into EVERY thread is what is being stated!

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