Karaoke Forums

there were a few other disc numbers in there to
please pull these disc and send back do not sell in a nut shell

Scan it. Post it. Prove it.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

everyone look out Chris is going to start crying again

Chris I don't care what u say the offer was to Harrington so he could change his statement

and you need to read forum rules if you did you would not have posted your last post

are you trying to get me band

wait don't answer that I don't care what u have to say

shh shh shh !!!!

Yes please. I want to see it.

_________________
-- Mark

Correct, and precisely the point I was making Chris- and because of it we exist only through the sufference or indifference of the publishers/owners.

Any karaoke producer with ANY sense would work pretty hard at leaving them alone. However, with a certain EX-karaoke producer bringing a brass band into their bedroom, we can only await the changes. When they come, I guess we'll know who to thank.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

How about SC8438 and many others? Yes you've answered several times- with the best spin possible, and sometimes differently (i.e. "We had a verbal agreement, began production, but the agreement fell through. ( paraphrased by be- JC)" Paying settlements over licensing disputes relieves SC of any further liability. It does NOT neccesarily imply that SC has received licensing to produce the track.

However, I just ask if the content of SC8125 is still being offered by SC, either on the regular Spotlight Disc by dealers, or on the GEMS for SC?

I found the following excerpt from a document elsewhere on the internet, and would ask you to either confirm or deny it's validity:

Filed August 14, 2013
Document title:
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES

“17. Slep-Tone created an extensive library of re-recorded popular
music songs that span different eras and genres of music, but prior to 2010 did
not routinely pay music publishers a performance royalty or agree to full
copyright licenses of its productions.”


This is supposedly part of a stipulation of parties signed by SC. with the understanding that it is only PART of the Stipulation, are you stating that the the above is false, and such a stipulation was never signed? I'm not arguing- I'm asking.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

My comments were specifically about 8125. I don't have any specific information about 8438. I do know that every suit or dispute involving copyright infringement has been resolved in a way that has rendered the product already sold legitimate and licensed. Your issues with timing do not reflect the law regarding licensing nor the business reality.



I have no idea whether any dealers still have copies of 8125. I suspect not, given the demand.

There is content that appears on both 8125 and the GEM series. However, you should be aware that while 8125 is an "Eagles" disc, the dispute over 8125 was a dispute between SC and Don Henley. Mr. Henley did not write all of the songs on 8125. Even where he was a co-author, when a song has multiple co-authors, any of those authors (or the publishing companies that hold their interests) can independently license the work for karaoke unless there is an agreement among them otherwise. A good example of this is "Hotel California," which was written by Don Henley, Glenn Frey, and Don Felder.



I will note that SC doesn't pay "performance royalties" in the first place, nor is it obliged to do so, so that much of it is true.

We did not agree to that stipulation both because because it was irrelevant to the case and because it is false as to the "full copyright licenses" portion. If it appears in a court document, it was not our doing.

It's been my opinion all along that SC's copyrights were limited only to the recreation and sale of duplicate discs. They may would extend to ripping and selling drives, and I hoped that would be a gray area found in favor of SC. It kinda makes me sick they blew this case. I know I probably seem like I lean more against SC than for them, but I do see drives as a part of the problem and going after sellers being the head of the snake. This may well spell the end of SC extending their rights further than they should but it also may well mean dealing with the big boys now. Maybe that's what is needed..

While certainly not a fan of SC's current actions, it is my belief that the KKS case probably had substance, and agree that if that is the case, SC wasn't able to take them out. I, and the other anti-SC methodology folks are as anti-pirate as anyone.

As for "The big boys"- I feel that getting their attention may have benefits ( better productions, possibly better pirate control), but that in the end the negative impact on the karaoke industry ( fewer music sources, higher initial costs plus fees, longer wait times, less tracks savailable, etc...) will not be worth it, and may well do fatal damage to the business as we know it.

If all the producers followed the examples set by Pocket Songs and SyberSound much of this upheaval would never have happened.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

What did pocket songs and syber sounds do

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

People who get banned seem to manage that all on there own.

Don't claim you have something and say you will post it if you aren't going to post it. It basically allows us to believe you don't actually have it. Feel free to scan it and send it to me in a PM if you like if you think posting it publicly will get you banned.

If the document exists and is worded as you suggest it is, that would be very interesting to me.

But how can you firm up your case unless you can actually prove it?

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

1) Paid their dues. I have yet to find any suits against them regarding licensing problems. No songs produced and distributed without documented permission. ( That is, as far as I can tell. If they have had problems, it has been so rare an occurrence as to be negligible.)I know of no other U.S. producers that show up the same way. Therefore, no publisher/owner attention awakened.

2) No attempts to create download sites using factory created tracks ( yes, SC doesn't admit it, but they did). Therefore, no factory quality source created for pirating. Any pirate who downloaded their product got a re-creation, many of which were worthless. Think Limewire.

While it's nice to think that downloads are the key to 21st century music sourcing, they are- for the most part- completely hackable, giving pirates a source for free factory quality sound tracks. Like it or not, the only way to have any copy protection is with firmware imbedded hard media.

Example: At least 3-4 years ago the ability to create a memory card that would self-erase if a copy attempt was made was available, and being used for sensitive the protection of electronic engineering designs. I KNOW that at least one source offered SC a way to protect against duplication, but they showed no interest at the time.

3) No attempts to screw their customer base, no highly publicized court failures to draw even more attention from the publishers/owners.

In other words, they ran their businesses as they should be run, and are still successful in the karaoke production business today- unlike CB and SC ( and several others of course, but these to supposed "big names" worked harder to screw up than most.).

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Isn't Pocket Songs selling downloads through one site or another, now??

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

You haven't found any because you don't look, as usual. Citation to follow.

http://www.cmt.com/news/country-music/1 ... pany.jhtml

So why not stop using Pocket Songs karaoke tracks now Joe? They too created karaoke versions without permission just like the evil SC.

I look forward to your long winded opine on the evils of Pocket Songs now that it has been proven to you that Pocket Songs also created tracks before they got permission from songwriters. Please enlighten us with your wisdom on this subject and what KJ's should do.

_________________
-- Mark

SO MUCH EASIER TO NOT GIVE A RAT'S A$$ ABOUT ANY OF THIS. YOU CAN'T BEAT THEM SO YOU MIGHT AS WELL JOIN THEM. KARAOKE ANARCHY! EVRYONE ONE BREAKS THE RULES EXCEPT FOR THE CHEERLEADERS. WELL, THEY BREAK THE RULES TOO. THEY JUST DON'T KNOW IT.

Pocket Songs sell downloads through Selectatrack (only one I know of and CONFIRMED by Pocket Songs as being legit tracks for download) - unfortunately when they (SAT) added the Chartuster/DTE & KC tracks, they are now blocked to the US. I bought plenty of Pocket Songs on a 1 off basis! Although all of mine were on custom disc, the downlaod option WAS/IS available!!

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

I think that is the whole point Insane everyone has been naughty. I don't see you can punish others for what you are doing yourself under the guise they were stealing, since you were stealing also. Rather than lock the entire industry up, wouldn't it be better for everyone to get together and try, and work out a solution that is fair to all concerned? Since nobody has the morale high ground on this unless it's the publishers, who owned the material in the first place.

Also PS has made a number of discs without onscreen lyrics.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

[quote="Insane KJ"]

You haven't found any because you don't look, as usual. Citation to follow.

http://www.cmt.com/news/country-music/1 ... pany.jhtml
/quote]

WOW you found 1 for all the years they have been around and that was in 2001.

and the results were:
Case Name: Osborn v. MMO Music Group, Inc
Status: Terminated
Terminated: 04/29/2003
Disposition: Dismissed - Settled
Filed: 6/28/2001
Court: Tennessee Middle District Court
Assigned to: Todd J. Campbell
Jury demand: Both parties
Amount demanded: $0.00
Nature of Suit: Property Rights - Copyrights (820)
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Basis: 28:1338 Copyright Infringement
Origin: 1
Office: Nashville
County: Davidson
Flags: CASE-CLOSED, CASE-MANAGER-BROWN


so much for that

_________________
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

Wow, it was settled just like the SC cases. So what is the difference?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger