Karaoke Forums

Don't put words in my mouth. I offer no opinion on the legality of Sunfly's product, cloud or otherwise, because I don't know enough facts to offer one. If you want to ask them for a clarification as to how the current PRS licenses cover US sales, feel free. I'm sure they will be able to tell you.

I believe it would be covered by PRS as the transaction takes place on Sunfly's UK based server. Product is only delivered to a US address.

I'm not putting anything anywhere.... let's look at your explaination and supposed logic:

#1. IF Sunfly's product -- which they HAVE been selling in U.S. since beyond the "loophole closing" is in violation of the PRS licensing then the sales they've made to Canada AND the U.S. - including those sold through Tricerasoft -- are ILLEGAL. Correct? (who's the pirate here?)

#2. If LionShare Music hasn't completed acquiring all the necessary licensing to sell Sunfly's product in the U.S. (according to Sunfly directly) then, even direct sales have been (dare I say?) illegal. Correct? (who's the pirate here?)

#3. Who has paid the synch and lyric rights for Sunfly product on Digitrax? If the product was delivered HERE to their servers after Jan. 2010, then it's STILL a violation of the PRS licensing because "distribution to the territories of the United States and Canada are excluded," no if's and's or butt's.

I think the whole Sound Choice, Chartbuster, Digitrax, Piracy Recovery scheme is as crooked as a pretzel.

It's not *my* "explaination."

I know next to nothing about Sunfly's operations, so I have no opinion on whether those operations are legal or illegal. I have never said or suggested anything to the contrary. What I have suggested is that because PRS for Music no longer covers the U.S. and Canada, if you are concerned about the legality of downloads from UK companies, you should contact them for clarification.



Not necessarily.

Product sold in the U.S. must be licensed for the U.S. I have no idea whether Sunfly has licenses that cover the U.S.



Product sold in the U.S. must be licensed for the U.S.



Product sold in the U.S. must be licensed for the U.S. I have no idea what the licensing status is for Digitrax vis-a-vis the Sunfly product. However, I must correct you on something...distribution to the U.S. is not a "violation" of PRS licensing. PRS licensing does not *prohibit* distribution to the U.S. It just doesn't *authorize* distribution to the U.S. There are other ways that distribution to the U.S. could be authorized. Also, your January 2010 date is too early.



You're entitled to your opinion, and you're welcome to as many followers as you can grab, as long as they don't mind adopting opinions formed based upon baseless speculation, the absence of facts, and a lack of fundamental understanding of the Copyright Act.

There's really no confusion here. The sound recordings of the karaoke studios are licensed from them to us by a digital distribution license that covers the USA, for which they are paid. We aggregate the sound recordings of several karaoke studios for just this purpose, similar to the way Apple aggregates sound recordings of overseas studios and makes them available for sale in the USA.

The underlying musical works are separately licensed from the publishers to us in the USA, for which they are also paid. If a sound recording that an overseas studio has made available to us includes an underlying musical work that we do not yet have licensed, then it is not included in the product. As we are constantly adding new licenses, that number of works continues to shrink over time.

I hope this clears things up for you.

And I have already done that thank you.... (you seriously still don't believe I do my homework first?)



But you haven't finished your sentence: And products NOT licensed in the U.S. for sale in the U.S. are "not legal" or "unauthorized"....

Just like a KJ that makes a copy of his original disc.... it's "unauthorized" and a violation (illegal) of your trademark, right?


Which is another way of saying "illegal." Man up HarringtonLaw, this stupid cat and mouse game gets tiring.


It doesn't "authorize" distribution to the U.S. and there is a reason for that. "unauthorized" is another way to describe "counterfeiting" and "piracy" according to your very own definition and lawsuits.

Should it have been 2011?



I am absolutely entitled to my opinion and you free to discredit it all you like by calling it speculation, absence of facts or anything else... just as I am free in pointing out that you have a financial interest in your supposed facts.

No it does not. Your answer addresses only the "sound recording" portion of the "underlying musical work" not the synch rights or the lyric reprint which are required.

Apple does not redistribute lyrics with their sound recordings nor are they in synch.

If you're really licensed the way you described above, you can stream the audio only.

Gee Whiz!!! There go those dirty hands again.

Thank you for your inquiry, Mr. Staley. The licenses described above from the publishers of the underlying works are for video synchronization. I thought that would be clear from the presentation of the content, and I apologize for the oversight.

Mr. HarringtonLaw, the lead attorney for Sound Choice in their hundreds of lawsuits, suggested that KJ's "demand a higher level of proof" from vendors when it comes to playing karaoke tracks in a commercial environment to avoid possible lawsuits.

Care to demonstrate that higher level of proof, or are we just supposed to "trust you?"

I would certainly like to be convinced with verifiable proof that what digitrax is selling isn't violating some other party's copyright or other rights.

Your own site explains that infringement suits against manufacturers is what has driven them to the brink of bankruptcy -- this is piracy on a grand scale -- and we see that Chartbuster Karaoke was sued for this type of piracy and that numerous other manufacturer's have been sued as well.

Production, pressing, packaging, distribution and sale of an unlicensed karaoke product is piracy in my book.

So I for one, would like to see some verifiable proof that your product/service is LEGAL before I'd even consider it at ANY price.

So downloads were not legal and suddenly they are as soon as Digitrax launches? Wth?

The "Law" part of what you have called me is not actually part of my name.



The actual count is 83, approximately, and I am certainly not the lead attorney in all of them.



No, I said that you should demand a higher level of proof from foreign vendors because of the inherent difficulty in suing them if you get sued for copyright infringement. Would it be "name-calling" to say that your statement is a lie?



Since you're not a customer, and never will be, I would recommend that they ignore your request.




What about putting the contents of one CD+G on, say, 7 karaoke systems? Is that piracy in your book?



You wouldn't consider it at ANY price anyway.

Mr. Staley:

What sort of proof did you have in mind? I'm not certain our legal department would allow me to provide you with access to the unredacted contracts themselves. You might consider contacting Warner-Chappell, Sony/ATV and EMI directly.

I don't believe I've ever been on a first name basis with you and I am addressing the moniker YOU chose to identify YOURSELF with.


Pardon the error... perhaps it should be stated instead as the "lead attorney for Sound Choice in lawsuits against hundreds of defendants.

Happy now?



Let's see... Sunfly is a foreign vendor whose product is being utilized by Digitrax as an "aggregator" of sorts... No difference. If I get sued, then digitrax gets sued who simply and in turn, points a finger to the foreign vendor.

You can't resist name-calling even if it's your misrepresentation of your own statement to cover your....


I don't believe I was soliciting for your opinion or "recommendation."



It would be if you don't own the other 6.


Now you're acting as though you are a mind reader because unless you know for fact what my considerations are, and you don't, it's simply a demonstration of your willingness to make statements that have no basis in fact. But you're so used to that, you can't see it anymore.

VERIFIABLE proof.


In other words your answer is "no." Now, if you really want me to contact them -- and if what you are claiming is on the up and up -- then you should have no qualms about providing me with the specific individuals at each of these companies that I can verify this with via a private message.

This should keep your "legal department" happy, not publicly reveal your contacts or contracts and provide an avenue for that proof.

I'll wait patiently for the private message. Or email, whichever you prefer.

The ball is in your court.

I hope you understand that KJs are getting "enlightened" with all sorts of law related things we never thought were issues until recently (for me anyway). In many ways, the more we learn the more questions arise. To follow chips question for me in layman's terms, there is a fear that some of your collection will fall into future legal issues based on the Chartbuster past and be removed\pulled. We've been told in the past to (to paraphrase) "trust us" and "that's our business not yours" with regard to purchased karaoke media. Your situation is a little different as the catalog is dynamic. Having someone like the Eagles come back and say "you can't sell our disk any longer" after you buy it is one thing. But to have them come back with your service means it's just gone.

That is a little background on where part of the questioning comes from (in my mind).

No, you're not. "Mr. HarringtonLaw" is not the moniker.



Sure.



Whether you think there is a difference or not, the simple matter is that you said that I said something that I did not say or mean. That sounds an awful lot like a lie on your part.



It's YOUR misrepresentation of my statement. Don't put it on me.



And my recommendation was not directed to you.



Well, you're the expert.



Over the years, you have provided us with an enormous body of commentary about the manner in which you run your business. I don't have to read your mind to know what your considerations are. You have singled out for criticism the Sound Choice GEM series, on the (false and misleading) basis that it is "leased"--I believe you used the term "rented"--specifically meaning that at the end of the term, you own nothing despite having paid out a significant amount of money.

Now we're supposed to believe that you are interested in entering into an agreement that would result, over time, in paying out quite a bit more money than if you purchased a GEM license--I believe the break-even point is somewhere around 25-26 months--but with the proviso that if you ever stop paying, you lose access to the material. There are lots of reasons why someone might enter into such an arrangement, but based on your public comments, you're not one of them.

On top of that, we have your comments that you find the whole business "crooked as a pretzel."

Moreover, you at least claim that you have contacted publishers for the purpose of obtaining information about SC's licensing, even though you have stated rather publicly and spectacularly that you will never play SC tracks (even with a guarantee that you won't be sued for playing your from original discs). Why would you do that, if not to stir up what you think will be trouble for SC from the publishers?

So, I suppose it's possible that you are interested in Digitrax's products...but only in the same way that it's possible that you could jump from a 12-floor balcony, land on the pavement below, and not die.

Here is a question for DigiTrax that might broach several areas of concern: Is there any possibility of coming to licensing agreements with UNIVERSAL???

I would disagree. And by virtue of your insinuating stabs in the dark above, who's lying now?

I've also contributed to this industry "over the years" as you so helpfully pointed out by contributing to it. Marketing materials, ideas, software and yes, a fair amount of commentary.

Other than your flim-flam, whiplash-commentary, threats and lawsuits what have you or your client actually contributed? Nothing you couldn't "monetize."

(This could take some time for you to dream up something creative, so I'll wait patiently.)

At the end of the lease, or rental period if you prefer, what exactly DO you own despite having paid out a significant amount of money?
Nothing.
Defense rests.

Who is supposed believe what? Are you speaking for the whole world? Are you the spokesman for "we?" Are you somehow jumping to conclusions? (like that's never happened before.)
And you couldn't pass up the chance at putting in a shameless plug for gem LEASE could you? And there's no difference with the gem: if you stop paying you lose access to the material... right? Right..


There's that "we" again..... Care to explain exactly who "we" is? And any rational, unbiased person not connected with this industry would take one look at the number of multiple lawsuits against manufacturers, especially TPC and others that range from copyright infringement to fraud to breach of contract and instantly agree.


You're still fishing aren't you? And to correct your obvious and blatant misrepresentation: No, I have NEVER received a written "guarantee" from your client that I won't be sued for playing from original discs. I had already informed you that your guarantee wasn't acceptable. And really after all, SC has had a record of hiring attorneys that don't follow instructions or don't do what their client instructs so I'm not about to put myself in that position.

I believe that to be a wise business decision.. wouldn't you agree?


I'm sure you and your client(s) would pay money to see that, but not near enough.

In the meantime, we'll see if Gia, the person in charge of licensing at Digitrax, (and just happens to be Joe V.'s daughter) responds with any information at all.

(OMG! How did he know that?)

1) Um.......

2) That reads just the teensiest bit "slithery", doesn't it? ( Rhetorical question)

Sorry for the drive-by, but since nothing will stop you guys from b!t<h-slapping each other, I thought I'd give it a try.

You know what? Not enjoyable. I guess I'll stick to simple debate....

Please continue.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."