Karaoke Forums

I don't think it is right to make people pay for an audit that most people don't even want. Since SC in the ONLY company that requires an audit, at this point, they ARE bullying their customers. It seems that the other companies don't think it is showing good will to force their customers to pay for audits.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

At least at this time the other manus don't. Who knows what the future holds. I'd still pay, it's my business and I see it as a cost of doing business - i'm the one making a copy of something that was never intended to be copied in the first place.

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

Reeer!

It's an unnecessary cost. And it's an unethical cost.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Well I don't feel it is unecessary nor unethical personally. If I was playing them in their original format (ie straight from disc only) and was demanded to pay a fee to see them, then I would wholeheartidly agree with you!

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

As long as I am not selling copies of my discs, or using one set of discs for multiple rigs, i should be able to do what I like with them. I Paid for them. I know you and I will never agree about this, but there are many who DO agree with me, and I think those numbers are growing. You see it right here. Even people who had been cheerleaders are starting to change their minds about being allowed to shift what they have paid for.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

First off, the use of the word "PAYING" in this statement , "I will be against SC as long as they are doing this crap to their paying customers.", is grammatically correct. I'm sure that there are still many customers out there that are still PAYING for more SC product (as they are able to find them).

Secondly, since you started this, the word you are looking for is PAID, not PAYED.

I made the statement to make an ironic point, not to be corrected, which is how I started my statement...this is not English class here...stay off my case...

Incidentally, PAYED is a well accepted "slang" version for this purpose--slang, much like the phrase "legal KJ"...(SARCASM ALERT!!!)

Except that slang or not, PAYED (paid) customers simply does not work grammatically in this instance. The ONLY correct way to phrase what Cue did, is to do it just exactly as he has.
English class or not, as Cue stated, you started it. Perhaps you might be a little more cautious before you start something you might not want to finish in the future.

I have been seeing that trend for quite some time now. First, they softened their "agreement" with SC. Then they fell silent. Then they "gently" stated opposition, and now I see some of them speaking up outright.
My! How times change!
I just find it funny how some of those very same people used to vilify those of us who have had that stance all along and look where they are now!
!

Don't think I need to explain why I say this, but stay out of it...

Not a chance!
Didn't think I would need to explain how a forum works, but here goes: Anything you post in the forum under the topics is fair game for everyone. If you want it private, then take it private. That's what private messaging is for!
Got it?

Ok...not worth any effort...I am done...

What I find strange is many people spout what's on the IPJustice website, yet not of their lawyers (if they truly believe what they say is right) has not offer their services pro bono for any host. They give their advice but are not willing to back it in a courtroom.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Not much of a repudiation of their statements there. I generally don't give my services away either. How often do you do it?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Yes, I can see why authorization to answer the question would be a problem. Whenever or IF ever you are ready.... I can't come up with an answer on how SC could pull this off- at least for any length of time.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe, I already answered the question. As usual, flawed premise.

If you are referring to the post where you said that SC tracks from the cloud would not be utilizing the MCPS licensing, that wasn't an answer, since- as far as I know- MCPS is the ONLY possible licensing SC has, and THAT would only for previously made discs and limited to a finite number.

Have all of SC's tracks now been licensed by another agency for SC? If so, what happened to Stingray's ownership of the library?

Again, how does SC plan to make more tracks available ( and get paid for them) in excess of those which may have been covered by the license?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe : you seem to be confusing the responsibilities of Soundchoice and Digitrax.

If Digitrax wants to stream/sell Soundchoice tracks via the cloud then DIGITRAX has to get permission from SOUND CHOICE and get whatever compensation for the SOUND RECORDINGS, which they either own the master copyrights for, or have in turn obtained permission from Stingray to re-sell.

Once that has been done, Soundchoice is completely out of it.. They are done, finished, out of it completely. It doesn't matter if they previously didn't have a license or not, how it was licensed or whatever.

From this point forward, it is the responsibility of DIGITRAX. They are the ones who have to get a license that will cover SYNC, Distrubition etc.

Just because something has not been licensed properly in the past doesn't mean it can't be licensed now. Stop living in the past, it doesn't matter as far as the Cloud is concerned!

The only place i could see this being a grey area, is if not even the Mandatory Mechanical license for the sound recording wasn't paid.

I don't believe that to be accurate.

The original copyright holders have exclusive rights to the distribution of the works.
A manufacturer can only distribute their recreations in the manner for which it was licensed.
This is why soundchoice can't authorize "media shifting" or broadcasting or public performance. They simply "tolerate" such activities in the hope that the copyright holders will tolerate it too.
If the license to create the recording only allowed for CD distribution, I would expect some relicensing would be neccessary prior to distributing it to digitrax and through digitrax.
If it were a simple process, digitrax probably would have kicked off with the 56,000 tracks they were promising instead of the 8000 tracks they ended up with.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF