Karaoke Forums

Do you REALLY think anyone will eat crow?? Seriously?? Have you not been on these forums for years?? Get real, Dude.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

That is the type of talk I would expect from you James, after all you have to defend your client that is your job. Now SC has been accused and is playing defense, how does it feel to be the hunted instead of the hunter? You will be the first to say anyone can be sued for anything, proving it in court is another matter. Sort of like the time the D.A. was told by the cop, "Your the D.A. you can indict a ham sandwich". The D.A. replied "A ham sandwich has some meat on it". We will have to see how much meat is on the sandwich EMI is trying to make SC eat.

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

It still amazes me that people who are supposedly benign, pro-karaoke people become ravenous buzzards, circling, waiting (and worse, hoping) for Sound Choice to die.

If you don't like sound Choice, so be it. Don't buy or use their product. But to actively hope they fail impacts more than just the name of Sound Choice and Kurt Slep. You may think that you only wish for Kurt Slept to lose his company or suffer some sort of financial failure, but in reality, you are imposing that some fate on the employees of Sound Choice.

That is something I find particularly heartless and insensitive and something i know many of you don't think about at all.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Really Chris are there any real employees left over at SC? They no longer make product directly and they have sold off all of their production equipment a long time ago. There are a few sales people and Kurt, they contract out their production now don't they? If it is illegal for them to license the GEM product or any other product they may be regarded as acting illegally in the sale of that product.

Is it anymore heartless than SC trying to sue hosts without sufficient proof to support their baseless charges? It is hard for me to feel sorry for a person or a company that has charged others for crimes they have committed themselves. If the EMI charges are proved in court, it would mean SC has engaged in the same activities that they have persecuted others for. They should know better but they didn't care enough to make sure they were operating legally themselves.

Any hardships that would fall upon any remaining SC employee would not be a result of any of the opinions expressed on this, or any other karaoke forum. Your righteous indignation appears a bit misplaced.

Before you set your sights on a pirate, do you take the time to find out if any young children, spouses, or sick relatives will be negatively impacted by the loss of income? Of course not. Nor should you.

Is it wrong for "benign, pro-karaoke people" to hold a manufacturer to the same standards we all want our peers held to?


-Joe

The fact that you don't know or don't seem to care is all the answer I need.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

The malevolent ill will that people express toward Sound Choice and Kurt goers beyond them and that is what bothers me. Kurt is trying to protect his business and his investment which happens to employee some number of people. A few of which some of you have worked with for a very long time and a few of which i have worked with for a couple of years now. Wishing Kurt out of business means you are wishing all of them out of business as well.

Pirates make a concious choice to steal something and then use it to make a living. They put themselves, their significant others and any children at peril when they make that choice. They know better but they do it anyway. Sucks for those affected but the persons in questions simply need to make a different and better choice.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Just as you don't seem to care about the hosts that have been sued by SC for maybe doing the same things SC has been accused of doing. The legal blade cuts both ways it is after all a two edged sword. I think Kurt has a more assets than the average single host, and that is why when they take a hit, it is more serious for them. A case can be made that the average host did not know what they were doing was illegal. It is doubtful SC can make the same claim since they are suing others using the same law.

"A case can be made that the average host did not know what they were doing was illegal."

Ignorance of the law is no excuse and that is in every law book in the Western world. As for SC and their legal troubles, let the courts handle it. Of course if people didn't steal, there wouldn't be the mess that there is.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

That is right tim ignorance of the law is no excuse. When SC breaks the same law they can't use that excuse either. Especially since they have been suing others for the same crime, stealing intellectual material and not paying the proper fees.

Let me first say that I have not read complaint or the amended complaint. But based on my understanding of these posts, is it true that EMI is suing Slep-tone for copyright infringement of the very material (GEM series) that Slep-tone has provided to KJs and venues to settle hundreds of claims of trademark infringement against them? If so, how ironic. If true, and to protect themselves, I wonder if the KJs and venues will assert indemnity under UCC 2-312 against Slep-tone. UCC 2-312 requires that goods from merchants be guaranteed to be free from infringing, and the seller is on the hook if they are not. Seems like yet another fine mess for Sound Choice.

Here is what the relevant part of UCC 2-312 says: "(3) Unless otherwise agreed a seller who is a merchant regularly dealing in goods of the kind warrants that the goods shall be delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or the like . . ."

Chris, if the EMI suit finds that SC DID do what they claim, that would make Kurt a pirate.
in that case "Pirates make a concious choice to steal something and then use it to make a living. They put themselves, their significant others and any children at peril when they make that choice. They know better but they do it anyway. Sucks for those affected but the persons in questions simply need to make a different and better choice."
if we hold pirate KJ's to this standard, and as on many discussions, the other manufacturers that get lambasted for not paying licensing, and SC themselves expects us to meet this standard, then why should this one get a free pass? I'm not the first here to see a bigger negative impact on the karaoke industry come from the SC initiative than the pirate KJ's have had.

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

from the Gem License Agreement:
8. DISCLAIMER OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES. ALL MEDIA PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THIS
AGREEMENT ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND ALL IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
INFRINGEMENT, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMED.


I suppose anyone in possession of a GEM wanting to argue could always travel down to Mecklenburg County, North Carolina to dispute it though.

Makes me want to rush out and get a set for myself.

-Joe

But you discount the possibility that this ill will may be well deserved in the mind of the one expressing it. If you're a supporter that's great. I have had different experiences that led me to my current position regarding Kurt Slep and Sound Choice.

As far as any employee is concerned, my wishes or the expression of them will have absolutely zero impact in terms of their current or continued employment. There are several more pertinent factors that will decide their fate.



Businesses and the people in charge of them are also capable of making poor choices, including the conscious choice to steal something and then use it to make a living. Sucks for those employees affected but the persons in question simply need to make a different and better choice.

-Joe

I couldn't agree more. However, I believe you are suggesting that Sound Choice may have stolen music with which they have made a profit and thus jeopardized the well being of their employees.

Since I have avoided much of the legal stuff for a while now, maybe I have forgotten, but I don't recall anyone ever demonstrating that Sound Choice ever stole any music to make a living. There may be lawsuits out there, even active onces, but until they are settled, they are simply accusations.

Again, I may have missed it, or perhaps I am subconciously supressing it, but I don't remember anyone producing proof that Sound Choice stole any music. I also believe Harrington has stated that any licensing issues SC may have had have been resolved.

Regardless, two wrongs don't make a right. KJ's stealing karaoke music and justifying it in any way at all, still makes them thieves.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Just a question then, If a KJ is sued and settles with SC is that KJ now held in the same esteem in your eyes as a always totally legal and legit KJ or is that KJ just a former pirate in your eyes? After all the "situation" has been resolved.

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

This thread is about EMI alleging the "manufacture, reproduction, distribution, advertising, promotion, offering for sale, and actual sales of illegal and unauthorized copies of the subject works". I have no inside info on this, and I'm content to await a judges ruling. Nothing in your post that I responded to appeared to allow for the possibility that there could be any merit AT ALL to such an allegation. I do not find it to be beyond the realm of possibility.



I think you're either subconsciously suppressing it, or just flat out ignoring it.

I would think it would be obvious, and it should go without saying, but what the heck? If you want to break it down to semantics...using the logic in Harrington's statement above, maybe the use of the word "Pirate" will never be necessary again. Why not just refer to hosts with 100,000+ song hard drives as "KJ's with unresolved licensing issues"? You are willing to extend that courtesy to manufacturers. Why should a KJ be any different? Is there really any difference?



Two wrongs don't make a right, but two Wright's made an airplane.

We will always agree on the last point. I'm just confused why you have to qualify it with KJ's?? Theft of anything makes one a thief. Or, at a minimum, it makes a person with unresolved licensing issues...just depends on who you ask I suppose.

-Joe

this pretty well sums up the double standard i have talked about before.
copy and use music for business that you did not pay for....
if it's a KJ it is "a no good pirate" and no benefit of the doubt as ignorance of the law is no excuse.
if it's Sound Choice, it is "unresolved licensing issues" and they should get benefit of the doubt that they didn't know.

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

And three Lefts make a Right.