Karaoke Forums

yeah, just re-read it and it doesnt say that, but if you do, can they really go back on that and change their mind?

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

The only way I "missed" it is if, when you said you "had" agreements, that the intent was to communicate that there is an written agreement with both party's signature on it, which is a severe stretch, and is testified by the previous poster's assessment. Now, assuming the newly translated version, how is it even remotely possible that someone can rescind a signed agreement in this specific case???

What I said was:



Sorry that I wasn't explicit enough. SC does have signed license agreements.

It's not a question of changing their minds, but a notification that they would assert certain rights of ownership that are not part of the law or the agreements.

i still find it hard to believe that someone could come along and add stuff to a signed contract without consent by both parties

seems to me that would be kinda like congress deciding that the bill of rights no longer applied to all of it's citizens.

but then I never claimed to understand the legal process of anything

-James

"seems to me that would be kinda like congress deciding that the bill of rights no longer applied to all of it's citizens."

They've done that already (as did my country) with the internment of Japanese-Americans/Canadians during WWII.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Bumping further down so that it doesn't get missed....

This is truly bizarre, and the alleged facts as they are presented do not add up under their own merit. From this perspective, I believe it is safe to come to one of two conclusions: 1) the publishers DO NOT have the right to assert this alleged "phantom" right, and SC would have grounds for a breach of contract claim; or 2) the publishers DO have the right, and are exercising some sort of clause that has possibly never been enacted before. If 1) is correct, then stayed tune for MORE litigation! If 2) is correct, then SC might have to concern themselves with having to cover another black eye, and deal with what might be viewed as a "policy change", which seems to be apropos these days...

Man, seems like all the consumer advocacy forums I frequent are up in arms about something this weekend...gotta get to bed!!!

It also could be the failure to produce new product or just rehash the old product is impossible due to business cash flow problems. A contract exists when both sides agree and some type of value is exchanged. This whole contractual impasse could be a smokescreen to cover up the fact SC doesn't have the resources currently to pay the licensing fees. One of the prior reasons James gave for the failure to meet deadline was the over $200,000.00 with held by Donna Boris and APS. If SC is so cash strapped that the loss of these funds stop production of product, just how close to implosion are they? Have a blessed day.

Although I didn't read "signed agreements", I DID read that SC had "RECEIVED LICENSING from two of the publishers".

I would, of course, assume these are signed agreements.

That being said, you indicate that the new assertions came about AFTER receipt of the licensing.

Did these new assertions ( apparently not included in the original licensing) somehow void the licensing already received by SC?

If so, how is that possible? They signed the licensing agreement, SC has licensing per the original terms. What's the delay? Have they found a way to negate the signed agreements?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

This story handed out by James is just another excuse for no product. No matter what the reason it just shows once again SC is a company that can't get it's act together. Little by little it is becoming more apparent the emperor has no clothes. SC did not join nor support the Cloud Service, at the summit the experts said the still viable manus would face possible implosion by 2013 if Cloud failed. Well it's 2013, is SC on the ropes waiting for the knock out punch? Have a blessed day.

I think that the rights owners have finally caught on to what SC is doing and is tired of their shtako and have decided that if SC wants to use those tactics on customers they will make it hard for them to get any new music or even use the old stuff.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Your entire response, as well as a couple of others, is a clear indication of the uncertainty the language had in the OP. The term "received licensing" could refer to various points in the process where the OP's position was that an agreement was in place (which would be eerily similar to the position I have read about in this forum concerning that 8125 disc). As stated earlier, it seems logical that if a written agreement is in place, that SC would have a sound legal argument against the publishers, UNLESS, the alleged position the publishers is taking (or any other potential issue) has some level of validity. Could it be that they have ALTERED THEIR POLICY to avoid a case of "contagious black eye"??? Hmmm...

What does that mean? Does that mean they (the music publishing group) is trying to assert a right that doesn't legally exist in your contractual agreement with them, or does it mean that they want to assert a right of ownership that just doesn't legally exist?



Now this statement (above) I can understand...

Agreed... If memory serves me correctly (from basic Law 101), a "Meeting of the Minds" has to take place, and the contract can not be alterd unless both parties agree to it.

But, assuming SC does not want to agree to the newly notified terms, and since the original contract has not been enforced yet (I am assuming that if the new music wasn't produced yet, the contract has not been enforced), is the previous contract still enforceable (since the other party wishes to change something that wasn't there in the first place)?

And as a footnote to my questions...

I admit it should be a given, but keep in mind that all information submitted on this subject thus far is from an unverified and naturally biased entity, which makes all of our speculation have a lower percentage of possibility. Obviously, the nature of these type of negotiations tends to put outside parties into such a position, so, speculate on...

I'm not going to discuss the specifics of the contracts. Suffice it to say that we and the publishers in question have a difference of opinion about what is meant by some terms in the agreement. People who take delight in anything negative that happens to SC will speculate and laugh and make statements that are uninformed and false. Believe what I said or don't, I don't care. The point of the original post was to explain why new production has not yet appeared, not to start a debate, and certainly not to plead with the anti-SC crowd for anything.

This will be my last comment on the matter unless something changes.

Good idea. If your original statement ( that you received licensing from two publishers) is accurate, there should be no delay in producing their tracks, as you have the licensing and they would be obliged to abide by it.

The exception would be if one did not read the new contract carefully and note any changes before signing, thereby messing oneself up. This might cause delays, but would not be the publishers' fault.

If the original statement is incorrect, then there are other reasons for the delay. Kind of a whoops either way. Best to let it cool down....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Perhaps everyone should give it a rest Joe, but like Harrington just said:

_________________
-- Mark

At the risk of being stereotyped, there is a difference between people "delight"-ing and people wanting to be better and accurately informed...

Not that I'm saying this is what is happening but just pointing out that sometimes songs have more than one rights holder--especially on collaborations. Ever notice the long line of publishers at the end of some songs?

I don't think it's too hard to understand or out of the realm to consider that publishers may be pushing to retain more rights while probably wanting a bigger piece of the karaoke pie. After all, they do hold the rights to the original works. I also do not think it's too hard to understand or is out of the realm to consider that karaoke manufacturers have been used to things a certain way for a long time and wish to keep things that way.

I'm having a hard time with any conspiracy theories on this one..