Karaoke Forums

And I guarantee that anyone who has signed that agreement has been bullied into it.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

And why would you object to that? The only people that would possibly be signing that agreement would be the people who never purchased those discs in the first place (also known as "Pirates"), and couldn't prove a 1:1 ratio in their system/s. It would be the people who spent $500 for a HD loaded with 100,000 plus tracks (of illegally obtained music), or those who borrowed a fellow KJ's HD and just copied it, or those who just traded 100's of copies of discs with other KJs without ever making a purchase of the music they just added into their libraries. Keep in mind, the legit KJ can/could prove a 1:1 ratio for all of his/her library/ies, thus, SC would not be enforcing an order for them to destroy all non-SC content from their HD.

When SC first started suing everyone, their original settlement agreement made them just destroy all SC content (that they could not prove a 1:1 ratio for) from their HD, and then pressured them into purchasing/leasing the GEM series package. There were no stipulations about destroying other Manu's content at that time, and this was one of the things that had us legit KJs in an uproar. SC was basically selling their GEM series to those pirates with 100,000 plus songs at the cost of $4K or $5K, and making them destroy (about) 20,000-30,000 songs. SC claimed that this was "leveling the playing field" amongst the legit KJs. They then went on their merry way. This was not "leveling the playing field," because the pirate KJ was still operating with a 70,000 to 80,000 plus library (not counting the songs they now legally obtained the use of from SC), as compared to your average legit KJ who was/is operating with a library of 15,000 to 25,000 songs. It wasn't until later lawsuits that SC added this stipulation (to destroy ALL tracks that a KJ could not prove a 1:1 ratio) to their settlement agreements. So... what's wrong with that???

It's really not their business. They are ONLY responsible for their own product. They have no right to make people destroy other mfrs products. If someone steals a TV they don't have to give up their refrigerator, too. Everything i read on this site makes me more and more sure that I don't want to use my SC discs in my shows, mainly because everything associated with them is a hassle. I hear Kurt Slep talk, like at the summit, and I like him less and less, just because he sounds like a typical fast talking business slime. I can't stand those types. The whole SC thing just turns me off. I am finding that I don't even like to sing off my own discs anymore. I have actually been looking on Tricerasoft for alternate versions of songs I sing so I don't have to use my SC to sing off of. I have found a few good ones, too. Their tactics are slimy. Big turn off. The you have Harrington, and granted he seems nice enough, but he's a lawyer. He's SC's lawyer. He has to back everything they do, no matter what any of us feel about it, because they pay him. So, he can't really be trusted, either.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

"What's wrong with it?" It isn't hard to see what is wrong with it when you look past the results that might be advantageous to one person. Even if you give rights to somebody, whether by design with full awareness OR by coersion, you do not give up protection of the law. You may have to go through some hoops to have it enforced, but the law is the law.

Harrington has stated in a recent post on this forum that using certain manus, due to their lack of representation or lack of existence, is at one's own risk, or words to that effect. Whether one likes it or not, if they do not have representation or existence, THERE IS NO RISK.

The lack of policing in this industry, much like the DJ industry, doesn't give any one entity the right to assert themselves into that position, other than over their own property...sorry, but, as a matter of fact, it has to be said (without bias or emotion or whatever) THAT IS THE WAY IT IS...

"Be careful what you ask for." The cliche' is appropriately used here. The more the belt is tightened around these issues, the more you guys will have to potentially deal with more and more attempts at over-policing your industry.

Incidentally, could it possibly be that the reason that there was not an attempt to have everyone in early settlements delete tracks not in SC control is because IT IS NOT IN THEIR CONTROL??? As you experience people who let you walk over them to get what they want, you continue to push the issue until you meet resistance. Individuals need to protect their rights, and certainly do not need to be passive in giving those rights away.

All three of your posts were very eloquent, very wise, very TRUE, and will go nowhere with those that love SC and the actions they are taking.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

If someone steals a TV from Joe and a refridgerator from Chip, they shouldn't get to keep Chip's refridgerator when they are made to give Joe's TV back.

If a KJ once sued is signing a settlement agreement with Soundchoice instead of producing his discs, it's because that KJ either has no discs to produce, or that KJ is plain stupid.

If the KJ can't produce the Soundchoice discs, it's likely there are no discs to produce on the rest of the collection. Making that KJ delete the rest of the stolen library is the right thing to do.

But just because someone from Slep-Tone says they are doing something it doesn't mean they are actually doing it.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Except that Joe doesn't have the right to take Frank's fridge away from the thief, only Frank has that right. Now if Frank is dead, there is no one to take that fridge.


Whether or not the thieving KJ has discs from other mfrs or not, SC does NOT have jurisdiction to make them get rid of the files. It is not THEIR trademark. They are ONLY responsible for their OWN trademark. If anyone were to sign that piece of paper they would have had to have been bullied, or they are stupid!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

i agree, it is not their place to do that, but i can not feel bad for a thief being bullied into either following all the rules or having to go to court.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

I am of a slightly different mindset. Companies take advantage of people all the time. They should get some of that back. I feel even more like that now with this Cloud crap, because these mfrs are REALLY going to be screwing their customers. I know you won't agree with me, but oh well.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

It seems like you are saying that using pirated music is ok with you as long as the manufacturer of that music doesn't do something about it.

And it also seems like you believe stealing refridgerators (or stealing anything) is ok as long as you don't get caught.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

No, I am just saying that companies should feel some of the pain they perpetrate on the public once in a while.

As for the comment about the fridge, I said that if someone stole Joe's TV and Frank's Fridge, Joe can't force the thief to relinquish Frank's fridge because it is not Joe's property. That isn't to say that it's ok to steal if you don't get caught. That is to say that Joe has no place enforcing anything for Frank. Just like SC shouldn't be able to make a pirate destroy all other mfr's material. It's only their logo that they can enforce.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

It would not be unreasonable for Slep-Tone to make a claim that using pirated tracks, no matter who's label, reduces the likelyhood or need to legally purchase material from them and that the unfair competition posed by the existence of those pirated tracks does give them the right to seek their destruction.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I think it goes outside their power to force people to do that. If other brands want to get in the fight, that should be up to them. SC should NOT have the power to police the entire industry, just like the United States shouldn't be the police of the world. Whether or not you want to agree with me, doesn't really matter.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Claims of theft of any type have to be made and ted through certain legal channels, not through civil action. You can make any claims or statements you wish in civil litigation or filings, but making the statements does not substantiate them. If a person is accused of stealing, and the police are given permission to search a residence, they can seize any items that are claimed to have been stolen, or any items reported stolen by others. They cannot keep items that have not been claimed as stolen...it is as simple as that. The issue is even more limited in civil action. I doubt seriously that in any of these actions has anyone been given permission to remove anyone else's property other than their own. They probably cannot get permission from courts to even LOOK at any other property, which, assuming that is the case, means that looking at anyone else's property is IMPROPER...

oh but they have on at least one case had the court order for all pirated tracks be destroyed, Contrary to your beliefs SC has the authority because the other manu's have given that authority to them to save having to go to court themselves.
Joe can get Frank's fridge back to Frank if Frank gives authority to Joe to do so.

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

If a judge orders it - then it'll be so, and if the kj signs it, reinforces that as well. Which has already been done - no i'm not going to find the actual case, but it is somewhere here.

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

I don't feel sorry for any thief, they should not be able to keep anything IMO!

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

Where is it written that the other mfrs give SC authority. I have seen where brands like Sunfly and SBI have denied that they gave SC that authority, and have never made any deals with SC.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE