Karaoke Forums

I saw on another forum that 160 tracks on the GEM Series were unlicensed and now SC is being sued by publishers and KJ hosts that were sold licensed tracks that actually weren't. Does anyone on this forum know anything more about this, or is it just a story? The amount SC is being sued for is 10's of millions and would certainly end the company. If this helps it was mentioned on The Karaoke Forum, under the post Lawsuit Questions in the General Forum area. Moonrider posted "SC has another copyright suit filed against them 160 songs without proper licensing. Think they cand handle damages in the tens of millions"? It was also mentioned KJ hosts and home users were filing a class action suit against SC. For selling them copyrighted music with no license to do so?

I don't know what soundchoice is going to do when they run out of orignally pressed sets of the GEM series HOWEVER they were licensed BEFORE the ban on US and Canada came into effect.

Before that the MCPS that soundchoice licensed their gem series thru was worldwide, and therefor perfectly legal to make, sell and distribute in the US and Canada.

-James

I don't understand jclaydon why anyone would bother to sue SC if indeed there wasn't any question if their product is legal or not. Wouldn't the various lawyers representing the publishers and the class action suit have researched this before filing a suit, to see if there was some merit to the cases? Are they taking a page out of the SC legal play book and seeing if they can sweat a settlement out of SC? Have a blessed day.

I have not read anywhere about what actually caused MCPS licensed material that was made after the "ban" went into place to no longer allowed to be approved for sale in the US. Under the circumstances as they have been presented, I suppose that the handling of this material and the potential consequences could be a bit muddy. Let's say that if there is a "ban" involving material sold in the US now, it seems there would now be a separation between licensee and licensor that would make the follow-up on potential issues like this. From what I can gather, MCPS was an entity that COULD license for world-wide distribution, or EXPORT. It doesn't seem that this matters if a country, like the US, decides it is not legal to IMPORT it.

Given this disconnect, I suppose if a company were to decide to press more discs in the US, the risk of retaliation would be extremely low, if not nonexistent. Of course, this would be a scenario where black kettle pots come to mind.

I could even see it as feasible that the purpose for this "ban" was because it was found that such licensing might be outside the scope of what MCPS should be able to license. I don't know: just saying "license of US publishers material by a European company to be sold back into the US", without actually involving the US publishers, just doesn't make a heap o' sense to this poster...

It was pointed out on Free Forum that I had not supplied the link with information about the court filing on this thread here goes.

http://dkusa.com/CHBx/EmiSuit.pdf

Old news being used as propaganda by anti SC idiots.
You will find no mention of the GEM series in the entire document.
Stop spreading false information.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Hey I'm just asking questions, I believe it was posted elsewhere that the unlicensed material also was in the GEM series. It makes little difference what discs it was on or which series, since the same fines $150,000.00 per track times 160 tracks comes to $24,000,000.00. That is still money SC will have to pay if the jury trial goes against them. Of course I'm sure Kurt has got that in his back pocket, right. You didn't say it was old news before Danny why didn't you tell me sooner. Have a blessed day.

P.S. Did it ever occur to you Dan they don't need to mention GEM since SC's goose it already cooked legally?

Maybe that's because you just opened this (new???) topic up less than 12 hours ago. Some people don't spend their every waking moment in this forum, and sometimes they don't (GASP) read every single post that's been made in a timely fashion (or for that matter, at all). Have an impatient day.

Yes cueball, but we have been discussing it back and forth over the Free Forum for awhile, seems like Dan could have said something sooner. Really I think it makes little difference if GEM is mentioned or not, since SC is still on the hook for the damages, and the bill is going to be high. Have a blessed day.

P.S. Aren't all the cases referred to by the certified hosts also old news, that is played over and over and over again?

If, by "Free Forum," you are referring to another Forum outside of k-scene, then I wouldn't know. I don't go into those other forums. I barely go into Facebook. And, as for discussing things back and forth for a while and not saying that it's "Old News" sooner, welllllllllll, maybe it's being brought up now because you opened up another NEW THREAD to discuss an OLD TOPIC, and then made it sound like it was something new.

Just by Certified Hosts??????????????????? I won't even touch the rest of that statement.

Just because something did not have a license before and SC got sued *assuming that its true* doesn't mean that they didn't license it for the gem series.


two completely separate issues.. see my statement above

-James

But is it logical to think that they would allow licenses for one instance (GEM series) if they didn't allow them for other productions years earlier (again, assuming the allegations are correct)?

There are no unlicensed tracks on the GEM series, period. End of story.

Through that MCPS group, correct?

Good question, Doo- and I believe the answer is yes.

Here's what I'm wondering. Let's say that SC is still only distributing the original sets made in the UK. While the original sets may have been brought in before the ban- legally- I wonder how the ban affects the rights of distribution in the U.S.

That's actually an inquiry, as I do not no the answer.

Also, would a GEM owner be kind enough to tell me how many discs are included in the original collection? Thanks in advance for the help....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Here's a question for you James. Steve aka Thunder maintains on Free Forum that SC cannot be sued for infringement on any material produced by them since it is over three years old. If that is the case then how can you sue hosts for infringement since all of SC's material is over three years old? While you are at it why haven't you had SC dropped off this suit if the charges are without merit?
From the way Thunder expressed himself it would leave me to believe their is some statue of limitations concerning infringement? Also James how can it be the end of the story if their is still a case pending in New York? The story won't be over until the jury renders it's verdict right? Have a legal day.

Joe, there are 201, counting an update disc that contains songs they messed up on in the main collection.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Old material cue, not to anyone who didn't know about it before. You say I cruise these forums all the time and I didn't know anything about the suit until I just saw it a day ago. The suit was filed on 2/01/2013 that is not even 3 months old. It is a lot newer than anything SC or PR especially has been doing recently. Have a blessed day.

Sort of like all the Old news suits brought up by Insane and other certified hosts, is that propaganda by pro SC idiots? There may be no mention of GEM in the entire document, it makes little difference, since if the suit is brought forward and SC loses they will still have to pay. At this point a settlement of millions of dollars will end the ball game for SC. Also whether SC beats the wrap or not it does not change the fact that they are infringers themselves. They are just as bad as the guys who knock off 160 songs and sell them at the swap meet or out of the back of their car. They have infringed and are just as bad as the pirates they are trying to bust, and they are doing it on a larger scale and the amount of loses to the publishers is greater. Now tell me that the publishers don't have the right to protect their copyrighted material. Have a blessed day.

Yes.