Karaoke Forums

I have heard from three different KJ's that something happened in the EMI case? I have looked through the forum and have not found any PDF of any judgement, order or ruling against SC. I have visited the SC website and see that they are still selling Gem packs but the rest of the site is gone. Also there are no more Foundations on eBay for sale? Can anyone please help clarify what is really going on. I hate to be repetitive if this has already been covered I apologize. Please send a link for the unclean hands aspect because that's what I keep hearing from others but see no proof????

_________________
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it sarcastically!
The Truth often gets in the way of a good story.
Record companies should make every song in a karaoke version and kill the dispute!

I emailed Kurt about the SC web site a week or so ago. According to him, they are cleaning things up. No major revamp or other news to report.

To the best of my knowledge, the Foundations you normally see on eBay are being sold by 3rd parties, not by Sound Choice. Just a matter of supply and demand and not an indication of whether something is allowed to be sold or not.

_________________
-Chris

I just did a little digging myself and went to the 2 sites on SC's under construction web site, and neither of those sites have Foundation Sets for sale either. Further more I only found 1 Foundation set for sale over a period of about 15 minutes of searching. Now don't give me a hard time because I didn't spend all day at it, but I have never had a difficult time finding Foundation sets when I searched in the past. Why? Because I own Foundations I & II and the Bricks brand new unopened, and I wanted to see what they are selling for. Just very odd findings.

Why would Sound Choice not have their own products for sale on their own website? That is very odd to me.

I don't know what Sound Choice is ultimately doing with their web site, but I wouldn't start jumping to conclusion just because there seem to be no Sound Choice Foundation sets available. The site is under construction and has been for at least 3 weeks. There were foundations on eBay a week ago.

It would also be simple enough to reach out to a vendor that sells Foundations and just ask them if they have any left.

_________________
-Chris

There have been no notable developments in the EMI case, which is in discovery at the moment.

SC is in the process of revamping its website. Any changes to product availability through the site are unrelated to any pending lawsuits. If you'd like to order product, you can always call SC directly.

What is odd is that no one here can enlighten the rest of us as to the merit of what I have heard. CAVS won their suit but why are there no SC discs for sale??? SC has been pulled from Karaokewh has pulled all SC product, the one time partner (All Star Karaoke) with SC as advertised on their SC-store page which is now history. I think the revamping is SC trying to repackage sets of music that are legal instead of business as usual, making and selling songs illegally.

Did anyone hear that the SC former employees gave testimony against SC??

What about UnClean Hands???

Maybe Harrington Law can chime in here??? Although I doubt any truth comes from a lawyer when his clients neck is stretched out.

Harrington, answer ONE question please: Did SC ever produce and sell a single track without proper licensing? Just answer the question.

_________________
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it sarcastically!
The Truth often gets in the way of a good story.
Record companies should make every song in a karaoke version and kill the dispute!

No, they didn't. The suit was settled.



You have no idea what you're talking about.



. There has not been any testimony in the EMI case, which is still in the discovery phase.



What about them?



Some attorneys will lie for a client. I've been fortunate never to be confronted with that choice as to SC.



Licensing isn't like being pregnant--as in "either you are or you aren't." SC has *always* engaged in licensing and production practices that are consistent with the way that music publishers do business. The publishing industry runs on informal agreements, mostly because the decisionmakers tend to be artistic types who don't see the value of formality.

With that in mind, if "proper licensing" refers to meeting the requirements and timetables established by the music publishers, then the answer is no. SC has never produced and sold a single track without "proper licensing."

Sorry, didn't plan on chiming in here, but that last bit needs clarification, not obscufation. "Proper Licensing" has one meaning, and one meaning only- a fully documented licensing agreement. Kind of like when one wishes to use the GEM series. SC doesn't just say "Sure, go ahead- no need to worry about any paperwork" do they?

Can you tell the traffic cop that you will be "getting your license soon" with any hope of acceptance?

Nope, one MUST have the documented and signed agreement. That's what a license IS.

Same for the licensing that must be obtained from the publisher.
There is no other definition of proper licensing.
So yes, it IS just like being pregnant. You either are or you aren't.

Just hoped to clarify the question. Now, were one to use the ACTUAL definition to answer the question........?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Your view of licensing is naive.

Music publishers hold and/or administer copyrights. Copyrights are not self-enforcing. They are only enforced to the extent and on the terms that the copyright owner chooses. If a copyright owner wants to engage in informal licensing practices, that is a choice that the copyright owner can make. If a copyright owner wants to be a stickler, that's also a choice.

While it would certainly be possible for music publishers to adopt your definition of "proper licensing" as their commercial reality, the simple fact is that they haven't. Criticism of SC because it has followed the practices the music publishers chose, instead of your outsider view of what would be proper, is unreasonable and unfair.

What you don't seem to understand with respect to the music publishers is that they are entirely motivated by money. They exist for exactly one purpose: To derive money from the use of the property they hold. There is no other justification for their existence. Formal licensing costs money, either because of the expensive legal costs that contract reviews require, or because the delays associated with waiting on formal documents mean that projects don't get done or don't sell--or both. Those costs have to translate into a direct financial benefit in order to justify them. There is almost never any real benefit to having a full set of executed, notarized documents that represent the complete licensing record. So they aren't careful to make one most of the time. Informal communications are almost always good enough, and when they aren't, everybody gets together and works out the problem. Sometimes that requires a suit just to get started.

What you are describing is akin to demanding a sealed bid process and written contract every time you want to buy a can of tomato soup. It's just not necessary.

So all of the settlements you have been touting all this time Jim aren't really victories either, right? SC's insurer ended up paying I guess they are the real losers then. If settlements don't go in the win column that means you really haven't won any cases, only lost the one's that went to trial. Also no taint of criminal activity mars any of these civil suits since they have been settled.

In regard to Jim"s post: Wow. Just unbelievable- I mean LITERALLY unbelievable.....

Luckily for them, SC is way smarter than those big dumb publishers and requires a signed documented licensing agreement from GEM users. THEY wouldn't be caught dead not having signed docunented agreements.... OH WAIT! does that mean they are smart enough to require documentation from THEIR licensees, but not enough to require it from their licensors???

Hence, unbelievable....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Nobody settles for 375,000.00$ unless they were guilty and at stake of losing a larger amount if it went to trial! So in effect SC is more likely guilty of more than what's on the surface. I think the FBI should take a close look at SC operations for the last 20 years.

Still there is no explanation of why there are no Foundations and now even the Bricks are gone as well???? Enquiringly people want to know just how corrupt SC is and has been. So we can beat them down the way they did to all the alleged pirates whose lives they screwed with for years.

_________________
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it sarcastically!
The Truth often gets in the way of a good story.
Record companies should make every song in a karaoke version and kill the dispute!

Actually parties will settle just based on economic reasoning. For example if the cost of the defence will be more than the money being sued for, companies will settle for the lesser cost. It happens all the time.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

The truth is, no one knows EXACTLY what went on except perhaps maybe Soundhoice itself and perhaps Mr. Harrington. I doubt either of them would be willing to comment. Why should they, if they are innocent, no one here would believe them anyway.

The point is, why expend the energy speculating? What does it accomplish? absolutely nothing. For all we know,all the Foundation and Brick sets could have been sold. There could be partial sets, that retail outlets use to replace broken sets, that they are not supposed to sell. Some sets has been listed as destroyed for the same reason.. There could be lots of legitimate reasons why there are suddenly none for sale.. After all, it has been quite a few years since they have been in print.

either way, I am not going to expend the energy worrying about it until there is a GOOD reason to do so


peace

-James

Seriously? Why is the lack of Foundations / Bricks somehow a major conspiracy? Tell you what, I will call up the national Enquirer and see if they can take some time away from reporting on 3-headed alien babies delivered by the Kardashians to find out what deep, dark secrets Sound Choice is hiding. (sorry....taking a line from your signature).


First of all.....Sound Choice Bricks are still being sold by retailers -

http://www.planetdj.com/i--K-CDG-FBG4

http://www.asapkaraoke.com/karaoke/pc/S ... s-c398.htm

Second.....

I settled with my second ex-wife for a very sizable amount of money. I wasn't at fault for anything (except for waiting to long to get a divorce). I just wanted it over with and she made out like a bandit.

Sometimes the answers are a lot simpler than people want them to be.

_________________
-Chris

I have actually already commented on this.

The insurance company made the decision to settle. When you consider that CAVS sued for $15 million and settled for $375,000, what does that tell you?

(1) That Kurt was ONLY insured up to $375,000 ?

(2) That CAVS was afraid of a CB, DTE flim flam scam to get out of paying?

Just speculating like most here

No.

You people are exhausting.

Hard to believe a defense would exceed $375,000,000.00, but ok.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."