Karaoke Forums

Regardless of the tactics really Chris? So the end justifies the means? The whole karaoke industry has to conform to two manus. Who did you say really doesn't like the industry? I would think that any host worth his salt would resist any company that perverts the legal system to line their pockets at the host's expense. Especially when the company is not on sound legal ground while they are trying to pull their scam. If they were really in the right why are they losing the big cases, such as Kandy Store? If everything was done properly as Jimbo says then they should have won walking away instead of getting KO'd. You can't be so upset with the pirates that you are going to let SC and PR get away doing as they please and not being answerable to anyone.

Chris, piracy will NEVER go away. Two mfrs going after KJs isn't going to stop the problem. 10 mfrs going after KJs wouldn't stop the problem. You would need an army, if Kurts numbers are right that there are upwards of 30,000 KJs out there. Kurt even said it at the summit, that they are losing ground against the pirates.

What ALL mfrs need to do is modernize, and keep their prices low. You do that you take away many of the reasons for people to pirate their stuff. Let them shift without the nonsense of audits. Only a select few want Karaoke oversight. Most could live without it. Most want to be left alone to run their business without hassle and extra expense. You are the one who posted that video from Kevin Spacey. He said it, give the people what they want, when they want it, how they want it, and keep it affordable and you take away their reason to pirate. But SC and DTE/PR LLC, just aren't interested in any of that. They want to tie a noose around everyone they can.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

What's the difference Chris? SC is still using infringement as the excuse to start their legal witch hunt. It makes no difference if you are a retailer or an individual karaoke host. I was told by CAVS in both cases to establish infringement two parts must be present or legally their was no infringement. The defendant must copy the trademark, and he must be trying to create confusion in the market place. Such as taking the copied material and trying to sell it as original product. The average host is not selling product he or she is using it in their shows.

You are holding up a single case that deals with a retail enterprise as if it sets a precedent for every individual KJ. I may be wrong and I will be happy to admit it if I am, but I think there is less to the KKS win that applies to individual KJ's than what you want to believe.

I do not believe that Sound Choice is suing just to line their pockets. They are recouping losses, and they are at the very least exercising their right to use the legal system to attempt to enforce their IP rights. In spite of the imperceptible impact it seems to have had on piracy, it has at least forced an on-going conversation to take place that we have kept alive for at least the almost two years I have been on these forums. Would you prefer the alternative which is absolutely none of the manufacturers do anything at all? That they just accept the losses? That we continue to watch the industry shrink and consolidate?

SBI, Zoom, Sunfly and a few others share the EXACT same backing tracks and just drop their swipes over the top. I would much prefer that they all create their own backing tracks, provide a greater variety of music and more diversity in the marketplace.

Why do they share the same backing tracks? Because as individual companies with individual productions costs, they probably could not be profitable. I think what they are doing is smart, but at the same time it makes me sad that they can't each stand on their own. Piracy has a part to play in that.

And for the record, do not automatically think I feel the same way about PR, LLC. I am still undecided on them. They have a sole purpose - to litigate. Sound Choice at least has a plan to try to go back into production. PR, LLC doesn't seem to have plans to produce anything at all.

I have to hand it to DigiTrax for letting a separate entity take all the heat for enforcement in an attempt to avoid the backlash that Sound Choice has suffered. I think people recognize that though and they will take their lumps soon enough as well. Much of that depends on how PR, LLC goes about their cases.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Should you really be criticizing MY Spelling? Your errors are surrounded by the ***** asterisks. You shouldn't have kicked the sleeping dog.

Chris, Zoom does not use the same music as SBI, SF, MR. E and AB. Zoom creates their own. I have been buying mostly Zoom lately because their versions of certain songs are superior even to SC, in some cases, but they are definitely better than SBI and Company. As a matter of fact, Zoom's website has dropped SF.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Fun read. I'm a little quieter these days, simply because everything I've been posting over the years is coming to pass.

SC started out with something that COULD have put a dent in piracy, even though that would have been a by-product of their true purpose- as even Kurt stated: Recouping losses.

Unfortunately, despite being told and shown repeatedly, they screwed it up.

APS, Donna Boris, monetary and credibility losses due to either mismanagement or non-management of same. Huurting the market for their own label. Suing without any evidence of wrongdoing (Tortious Interference), initiating litigation without professional investigation, annoying judges to the point of negative statements regarding SC's actions by same being added to court records for future use against them, in the process losing cases and monetary awards to those they sued, stipulating the production ( per legal documentation) of unlicensed materials prior to 2010 (by which time, BTW, they had gone out of the new production business anyway), multiple policy changes in midstride- no consistancy, letting actual pirates ( track thieves) off the hook for a small pay-off instead of putting them out of business, putting legit hosts through uneccesary processes and stress, and on....and on... and on...

Bottom line: whether you are pro or anti-SC methodology they seem to have written the manual for How To Do It All Wrong.

No matter how much noise either side of these debates make, it seems just a matter of waiting for the flush to finish.

Oh, I'm sure they will continue the Income Through Intimidation business model as long as uneducated KJs allow it, but I don't see a whole lot of future for them in the courtrooms of America- But then again, some folks will stay at the table until they lose everything, betting against 4 aces with a pair of deuces. Some folks just can't leave the game....

If PR does it all the same way, the results will be the same. If they learned through observation, maybe they might do it correctly.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I don't think PR has learned much Joe. They started their legal process parade without having an auditing system in place to lead off their march. They did not file suits individually like SC has ended up having to do, but rather it is the old mass suit fits all approach we have seen before. Like Jimbo has pointed out with SC that is in the interest of saving money. They also seem to be wedded to the old mantra "suits drive sales", in their case subscriptions. Basically they are running the same type of scam, hoping they can bully and brow beat hosts with the threat of suits into paying them off. A nice wrinkle is it's not just a one time payment with them they will come back every month to the host demanding more money, that can be increased at anytime.

Thanks. Corrected.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Chris I'm holding up this single case because thanks to your friends the manus most other cases were settled out of court with the outcomes kept secret by both parties. The few cases that have been tried have not turned out the way the manus have planned, and have proved embarrassing when the details became public knowledge.
As CAVS pointed out to me this case is important because it sets up how trademark infringement attaches. Without trademark infringement attaching there is no legal reason for SC to go to court. The tract content is owned by the publishers.

You don't believe that SC is suing to line it's pockets. You don't know for sure though do you Chris? I believe in God but others would say I have no evidence to prove his existence, so you are taking a little leap of faith there aren't you? What SC is doing is perverting the civil legal system, using an old company standby, tying up another company in court, hoping to force the other company to do something they would otherwise not do. Just like JP Morgan threatened to tie up Westinghouse in court in order to get the patents to AC, which at the time were owned by Westinghouse. Same principle on a smaller scale. The alternative I prefer is one that was shot down and due to the greed of the manus will never be implemented. An operator's license at a single fee so the host can run his business without fear. The money collected from the fees would be paid out to the manus, much like the collection companies pay out to publishers and artists. That system seems to work out well the bar and venues pay the fees and they in turn are paid out to the various interests. It is a win win situation.

I'm glad that you don't feel that good about PR. Coming out of the gate it doesn't appear they have learned one thing from the SC example of how not to do things. They are starting out even worse, no auditing system setup before they started suing. Naming non profit organizations in their suits like the Moose Lodge, something SC never did. Still clinging to the mass one size fits all lawsuits. Using the legal system to drive sales of their product, it is the same movie so far with a different title. Answer me one thing Chris how is SC going to go back into production? They have a plan it is true, how can it work if the publishers refuse to allow them to license the content of the tracks? Currently EMI one of the publisher groups is suing SC, do you really think they are going to license SC while the case drags on? If EMI wins their case that could be the end of SC as a company, if EMI loses do you really think they are going to do business with SC?

Not quite accurate. Jim already stated that the problem is not in getting the licensing permission for SC to start production on new track releases, but that the problem is within the contractual agreement for those licensing permissions (and what the Publishers are asking for within that).... This has already been posted... go search.

With all due respect cue I think there has to be more to the story besides contract disputes. EMI is currently suing SC, is it so far fetched that they would at least stall any new licensing until their suit is resolved? The fact still remains that no new SC product is being produced and currently SC's status is about the same as PR's. The only difference what product SC has is still being produced by them. In PR's case production of product is in the realm of DTE, PR's partner company.

You slip and fall in a store and sue the store do you think the store would not let you return or do business with you? One thing has nothing to do with the other. The problem LR is that you and some others are taking it personally instead of what it is, just business.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I do believe that they originally thought that it would be easier for them to sue people that stole from them, than it would be to make it by producing and selling new music. It doesn't look like it is working too well anymore (if ever). Make it available as a single song purchase by download, and I would be very happy too.

I probably own nearly every SC song that I will ever need (not exist) and have eliminated thousands of SC songs from my song books because they do not fit my audience (50-80) or they are over 5 minutes. I still have all those songs they just are not available for most shows.

Do you believe CAVS just because they said so? Or because they are on the same side as you? Talk about leaps of faith. Not saying they are incorrect, but it is odd that you make one phone call to them, you take them at their word and you add it as a plank to your platform. Whereas James has been here for two years and everything he says is questionable.

You are very fond of saying something to the effect of "you can't believe Harrington because he only has the interests of his employer in mind".

You spoke to an actual CAVS employee (probably anyway.....unless they outsource). I wonder where their interests lie....



I do not believe they are suing to line their pockets. I believe they are suing to recoup losses, protect their IP, and use the compensation to stay afloat and go back into business. I do not think Harrington, Kurt, or the employees of Sound Choice are stuffing their mattresses with Benjamins.



Sound Choice made significant material investments over many years to bring to market one of the best known and most widely used libraries in karaoke. They have a right to protect their investment using the law. I don't think the tied KKS up in court. I think they believed in their position and stuck it out. According to Harrington they are even appealing it. It isn't over yet.

That all said, you don't see me stomping my feet, bitching about KKS, calling them names, bashing them or putting them down. They also stood up for what they believed in and they also had a right to do so. So far they are on top. But again. It isn't over yet.



Shot down by greed? Which manufacturer(s) said "Nope, we don't want to what The Lone Ranger suggests because we won't make as much money that way!!!" ?

Shot down? Was it ever even considered by anyone with any ability to implement such a program?



Have you considered the cost of implementing and maintaining such a program?
Do you think a one time fee would cover the costs?
Do you think there would even be enough support in the industry by KJ's to make it effective?
How would it be enforced?
What are the laws that would even allow such a program to be enforceable?
Do you really, truly, honestly think we could get the industry, the KJ's, the venues to all agree to such a program?
Again I ask.....shot down?



Why in the world should non-profits be excluded? If they hire and pay a KJ who stole the music, that is no different than a bar doing the same.

If they have their own employee running the show using STOLEN karaoke music, why should they be exempt?

Why should ANYONE be exempt from stealing?




That' 4 things, but I will roll with it.



I don't have the answer for that. Neither do you. Neither does anyone out side of Kurt, his employees, maybe Harrington, and maybe some in their inner circle. They may or may not ever go back into production. *I* hope they do. *I* will support them. *I* will buy their product if they maintain the same standards they did for many years.



As Cue noted, Harrington said it is more of a contractual discussion. If I were to speculate their is probably a debate of fees that is part of that as well. I do not think the publishers will refuse because they are just as "greedy" as anyone else.



I really have not kept up on the EMI suit so I can't really make an informed comment. But EMI is not the only publisher out there.



Hmmmm did it ever occur to you that maybe EMI is "perverting the civil legal system, using an old company standby, tying up another company in court, hoping to force the other company to do something they would otherwise not do."? Probably not because anyone against SC can do no wrong.

Again, not saying EMI doesn't have a case (like I said, have not been paying attention to it) but I would lay smart money that the case will end in.............a settlement (gasp!).


-Chris

_________________
-Chris

I think the business plan was always to sue to recoup and use those monies to fund production. I could be wrong. I don't think we will ever know for sure unless Sound Choice discloses internal memos, documents, etc and I won't be holding my breath. I don't think it is important though. They say they want to make music again and I believe them.



I am in the same boat. But since I multi-rig I have to have duplicate discs. Finding some of them is getting increasingly difficult, especially at a reasonable cost. I too wish they could work out individual song downloads. I don't think we will see much of the OOP catalog end up there though. If they ever do pull this off I imagine it will be for mostly new material.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Sorry Tim... bad analogy to compare this to.

Same store, different analogy:
You steal from the store and get caught. Do you think that store is ever going to let you step foot inside their store again?... At least that's how it works with the big chain Department Stores... If you steal and get caught, they have you sign a waiver form stating that you agree to never step foot inside their store again, or they will have you arrested for trespassing.

What I was trying to get across is that businesses still do business with each other even if there is a lawsuit against one from another. Businesses do not take lawsuits personally, it's usually just a part of doing business.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Come on tim business's are owned by people and people do take things personally. That is why we have had some very bitter business disputes in history between some very large business competitor's. I guess some of your post is right on though. It would seem the manus are willing to settle with business's aka host and venues if they start paying up. Even if they are pirates and they have been stealing from them as everyone has been saying. I guess their policy is more forgiving than say Wal Mart.

I have no reason not to believe CAVS, the information seems right, the case was decided and SC did get it's legal backside kicked pretty good. The same side Chris and just what side is that? The side that doesn't want a company miss using the legal system, even in the interest of what you think is a good cause? You never made the phone call maybe it would have changed your mind, though I doubt it. I don't have a platform you are confusing me with Jimbo and Insane. I'm just a little host trying to get through life, until some manus decided to throw their weight around. Just like most of the little people go through life until someone starts trying to control their lives and they decide to speak out, against what they feel is wrong. You allow these companies the right to fight back and protect their interests. The little people have that same right, the trouble is they don't have the resources to make it a fair fight. That is what the bullies of the world depend on, that the little guy will cave in and meekly pay their subscription fee, or license some product. Jimbo is questionable since more than once he have made mistakes, after all he is human. He has proved he and SC can be beaten in court, it has happened more than once. That is why they prefer you settle out of court. Chris Jimbo is a lawyer, how good he is is anybody's guess, of course his first loyalty is to his client, after all that is who is paying him. I'm not saying CAVS doesn't have it's own business and interests and they are protecting theirs just like SC is protecting theirs. Just like the little host or hostess is trying to protect theirs. The problem is all of these interests are colliding with each other. That is why some kind of compromise would be better for everyone involved with the industry so business could resume as normal again. It is not a compromise unless everyone is at the table. The manus keep having these summits declaring this is the way things are going to be, that is not compromising. If they are not suing to line their pockets Chris then why are they seeking more than the fair retail value of the stolen product? That is what the judge in Florida say they were entitled to in the Panama City case. With SC they are at least reasonable you license the GEM and that is it. With PR you will be subscribing to Cloud every month for as long as you are in business. Smaller up front cost but still more over the long haul. Jimbo is the most appealing lawyer on record I'm thinking, I don't think an appeals court will overturn a jury verdict, unless Jimbo is a better lawyer than he has been letting on. When I said shot down I meant everyone felt it was flawed and shouldn't even be considered. Let's see what did they say, blanket amnesty, the pirate made whole for a small price, and worst of all no audit required. Gee that sounds a lot like what the manus are offering on an individual basis right now, doesn't it Chris? I wanted one stop paying instead of having to pay off every little manu warlord, controlling their little piece of the pie, that was the only difference I can see. No profits should be excluded because they are not making a profit, get it, and they support many worthy public ventures. Not to mention going after them would be like going after the church, bad PR for PR. That is why the local non-profits can have bingo, them and the Indian casinos. Why should anyone be exempt from stealing, oh you mean the way CB and SC stole from the publishers by not properly paying for the licensing of their materials. In that case I guess the publishers should throw the book at them, since they actually do own the content of the tracks, right Chris?

P.S. It seems Chris you believe SC because they say so, what's the difference?