Karaoke Forums

I agree. And I believe there would be whoppers.....

The rest of what you quoted in not necessary in the comprehension of it and makes no difference whatsoever.
Seems you're having a little comprehension problem again. Let me simplify it for you.
Damages are generally different than injuctive relief. Injunctive relief might mean something along the lines of a court ordering an individual to stop doing a particular thing. Damages, however is usually a monetary value awarded to the winning party.
Just-so-ya-know!

So why not just offer the fee to shift the material, the hosts that chose not to use the product don't. Then you could focus your attention on the others that have not complied. It would seem a lot easier and less expensive than your current efforts. The dragnet approach you seem to favor, where the innocent are sucked up with the pirates and letting the legal process sort the whole mess out for you.

Have you ever wondered why the fee annually is only $33.00 per year after five years? Could be a couple of things either there might not be a SC in five years to collect anything. Or maybe the $33.00 when the time comes could be much more if SC decides to raise the annual fee. Also consider that if no new music is produced the library at that time will be almost 9 years old.

Is DK still producing music? How old are they now?

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

It's called cease and disist, and it should be the first course of action by SC, as always is even with the biggestof companies

Point is I do an oldies show, my target market is the baby boomers, the largest single segment of our current society. I don't require an up to date library, in fact the older the better for me. Having new product is just not that critical. I'm not the host trying to attract the 20's something market, but I have young families that enjoy the show right along with the grandparents.

If you stopped throwing stones long enough to read the GEM license, you would know that the renewal fee, by contract, cannot exceed $100 per three years. And there is nothing in the contract that says the renewal fee has to be $100. It could be half that, or a dollar. It could be waived entirely. But it will not be more than $100.

Harrington Law:

Why can't Sound Choice just issue a blanket directive to allow KJs to shift the media to a hard drive. What is the big f'n deal with that? I saw earlier you discussed issue with the quality of display, etc. In many instances, the only people who see the logo/lyrics are the actual singers. As for the sound quality, in my former job I did quite a bit of traveling in the US, singing karaoke in many places and encountered some of the worst equipment you can imagine playing SC tracks. Same for the lyrics display, there are karaoke hosts using 15-year-old 13-inch television screens. As a matter of fact, one of your "certified" KJs has a system that sounds like crap, so plenty of damage being done to the brand there every night.

I am a subscriber to Prime Cuts for my mp3 music and don't have to be certified to shift my media to my hard drive, as a matter of fact, they send me cds already in mp3 format. If the karaoke manufacturers would just go ahead and give permission to place the tracks on their hard drives, most of this back and forth could be avoided.

I'm not the one that starting throwing the stones, I have been trying to find a reasonable way to stop the tossing. My point is why should anybody pay twice for material they already own. Of course we don't own the trademark that is shifted. So why don't you just charge a shifting fee and be done with it. The answer there isn't enough money in it, right. I personally would rather drop your product from my show, and pay nothing, of course that' just me.

You sir have no backbone... I won't waste my time going through all your blithering, stone-throwing posts... but even before Mr. Harrington began to post on this board, you were happily slinging away.

Own it.

No sniveling.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

Despite what some on here would have you believe, this initiative is primarily NOT about KJs who have legally purchased their music and are simply guilty of making a 1:1 shift without authorization. For every person SC has sued who was actually 1:1, there are 25-30 who are not. Those KJs are our primary focus, with the goal of (a) making them pay for their past infringement and (b) either leaving the business or destroying their counterfeit material and paying to acquire legal material.

When a person who is actually 1:1 is named in a lawsuit--we try hard not to do that, but it happens--then that person is offered a no-expense in-person audit, and if they are genuinely 1:1 (with a 2% tolerance) then they get an immediate dismissal.

Even if we could issue a "blanket directive" as you suggest--and I don't think we have the right to do so--it would affect very few people, and it would make it even harder than it already is to police illicit use of SC's material.

If you are concerned about using SC's material, here's how to do it without worries: Buy your discs legally. Stay 1:1. Volunteer for an audit of your system (paying a small fee that defrays a portion of the audit expense). If you choose not to get audited, understand that you might be sued if your show is investigated and we determine that you are likely operating outside 1:1 compliance. But if you are sued, and you are 1:1, you should immediate request an audit to verify that, and you will be dropped from the suit after you pass.

I was referring to the whole SC lawsuit thing, this is what started this whole process right. Not Harrington coming on within the last month or so. This has been going on for over 2 years now and still no significant change has occurred in the market place. You have real backbone licking the boots that kick the industry. If that's backbone heaven help all of us. As far a sniveling goes I'm not the one saying I can't live without SC.

No. Not right. Cart before the horse much?

Piracy started this whole thing.

You are dead wrong about any boot licking on my part. The boots you are referring to are not "kicking the industry" they are, slowly and steadily being aimed to kick the $hit out of pirates and their supporters. I wish Debi Stoval and David Grimes (both from Chartbuster) would return to these boards and support SC's position as they did in Charlotte last year. There are some interesting facts and opinions there that may even penetrate the fog of codgerism that surrounds you.

As far as sniveling goes... you're still at it. Your false statement expressing something that I never stated is just another example.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

Who is paying twice? I certainly haven't paid "twice" for the GEM series, nor will I.

And as for "Why" they charge it at all...read and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_%28legal%29

They do that now, but you seem to have a problem with paying it! You want to claim you are all for paying a "$500 per year" nonexistent licensing fee that allows you to "shift your content" when both Sound Choice and Chartbuster (and Stellar in another form) already do this at a much cheaper rate (other than Stellar who charges $2500). I can only imagine the shock wave that is going to roll through the community when Stellar starts filing lawsuits, it ain't going to be cheap to settle. Everyone sort of has Stellar on the back burner because they don't hear anything from them, but Tom is a crafty old bear who has been quitely laying the ground work for those who have pirated his product. A perfect storm and It's coming!

So let me ask you, why do you feel it is OK to pay $500 PER YEAR for the same thing already being offered for much less?

Well i cant answer for him of course, but my answer would be because that $500 would cover something that NONE of the manufacturers can currently offer - 100% peace of mind that as long as u are operating legally NO ONE can come after you especially for those brands that no longer exist.

Remember even people like soundchoice admit that they don't have the full rights to their tracks and altho it is very unlikely the possibility of the original IP owners coming after you exists.

-James

I have that now so does everyone else, as long as you are operating "LEGALLY" no one is coming after you. It would only be those who are operating illegally that have anything to worry about. The kicker here is to operate legally and to do that while shifting the content for computer use you need the permission of the manu, I have that!

Sound Choice offers just that, it is called the GEM series, so does Chartbuster and Stellar.

So why are you so concerned about the fact that Sound Choice not making any new releases?