Karaoke Forums

Stop what Chris I'm not doing anything to anybody except in your mind defending pirates. If we are going to decry all pirates then we should also decry the manu pirates as well. Jim has explained that the charges against pirate hosts are not criminal but civil. So neither of us should be using the T word at all. It is a civil matter that should be tried determining the amount of damage and what is needed to set the matter right. That is all this is about yet you want to keep equating it to criminal activity. If it gets elevated to that level then the manu charged by the publisher should also be described in the same terms.

P.S. If even one host is falsely accused I think that is one too many. One aspect of our legal system is it is better for 100 guilty go free than to have one innocent suffer.

I assume you ignored the rest because you don't have answers.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

The last time I gave you my answers you were so distraught you had part of the thread moved. I decided not to upset you Chris.

That is about the weakest response to someone being cornered that I have ever seen. I believe I have made my point amazingly clear yet again.

Thank you.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

I've been here for while, and have seen many changes..

I've been to shows and witnessed the KJ making "Back-ups" during the show. (Read Pirate)

I've visited a Karaoke shop in Vegas, and even though the language was Tagalog, the product for sale was clearly printed on a PC. (Read Pirate)

I was in San Pedro on another job, and saw three cases of SGB CD+G discs in a garage. (Read Pirate)

On each occasion, I posted about these observations. (For all to see)

Today. I'm sure the KJ has changed jobs, and those SGB discs are sold.

Not sure about the Vegas shop.. Might be there still.

But, not once did anyone ask for specifics..

I believe this falls into the category of (Choosing Low Hanging Fruit)

_________________
Yes, We do That... Computers, Web Sites, Networks, Antique Cars, NASCAR,
Tour Guide, Stunt Double, Romance Lessons, Hyperbole, Humor, Modesty.
Karaoke too...
Quotes on request... Jerry Dixon

Chris, I know two hosts in my market that were correctly accused of piracy that have not settled and continue running multiple shows each week, one is right back at one of the venues where he was caught, and this is two full years after the action was taken. That's my big issue with SC, they catch these folks and, at least in NC, the guys are still out and about working and there are SEVEN SC-certified hosts in that area, the most of anywhere in the country, and four of them have 2 or fewer weekly shows - so how did they benefit from it all? I also personally reported two others in 2009-2010 that they somehow missed in their 3 sweeps through and THEY are still doing shows. So fighting piracy? I think not.

Which sadly reinforces my point - even if you are a pirate, being a accused of such activity may have little to no impact on you. It certainly doesn't impact legitimate folks on any scale the way Lone Ranger would like us to believe.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Due to your turning a regular thread into yet another legal crap discussion.

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

No, it's not an admission at all.

As I said at the time, the wide majority of the songs SC was accused by EMI of infringing have not been sold within the statute of limitations.

Under those circumstances, because the statute of limitations is an ABSOLUTE DEFENSE, there is simply no reason to do the hours of research necessary to determine whether each of those songs had current licensing during the statutory period. I don't know about you, but I think it would be a horrible waste of my time, and my client's money, to comb through thousands of documents to show something we don't need to show.

Only a complete dullard would assume that our reliance on the statute of limitations as a defense would mean we are otherwise admitting to the claim.

Still the statute prevents you from having to answer some questions you would not other wise have to answer Jim. To have to invoke at all means to me you are hiding or trying to hide something. If EMI wins I wonder how many of your supporters will continue to be around. They will drop you and SC like a bad habit, since they don't want to be considered pirate supporters. If you and Kurt were really on the up and up you would check to make sure you have paid and if not you should still pay, it doesn't change the fact you used the material without paying. If a pirate managed to show he stole your material but hadn't done a show in three years, and was not liable, it still wouldn't change the fact that at one time he was a pirate. He just managed to beat the system.

Just like I think the two track system of justice is a very weak response. Either we treat all the same or we just call it a day.

Ok, I'm a bit confused. Per EMI's claim, it looks like the MCPS licensing was issued to FCI Media Plas, and was never issued to Sound Choice. Despite MCPS's documentation that their licensing is "worldwide", it was NEVER accepted as such in the U.S., which means that even if they wanted to, MediaPlas could not transfer licensing to a U.S. based company- IF that is what SC is claiming. That being said, what does any time constraint / Statute Of Limitations have to do with anything? It looks like- from what I've read- only MediaPlas had licensing, not SC.

Again, not aiming at SC here, just trying to figure the whole thing out. It's a mess.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Actually the overseas licensing WAS infact worldwide up until a couple years ago when they changed that aspect. It's even in their TOS. Anything produced or licensed before a certain date is ok for worldwide use, after that no. Which is why all the USA retailers had to pull all stock after that date. Many still sell NOS discs that were improted and bought before that date!

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

Which brings up the question since SC licenses it's GEM series to the hosts, are the ones licensed after a certain date ok? Is this covered by the prior licensing and extended is what I guess I'm wondering? If not are the 4000 in sales made after the deadline and not covered, is that what EMI is maintaining? Also why was the other defendant dismissed? Maybe because it was determined that even though they were selling loaded HD it was loaded with material that wasn't legal in the first place. That EMI elected to go after the source of the material not the distributor of it?

Don't you know me by now old friend? If it was directed at you, it would have started with "Joe". I am not one of the passive-aggressive's around here.

i think you are confused. I could be wrong but what happened with the licensing is is a disc was licensed for worldwide use was imported by a retailer. It doesn't matter if we are talking about 1 disc or a couple of thousand.

So those discs that were licensed to Mediaplas in the UK were bought and imported by soundchoice. No separate licesnse necessary just a strict sale from one company to another and absolutely no different than a company like Zoom selling their discs directly to a retailer in the US or Canada.


all those discs that were imported prior to the cutoff date where the licensing changed are legal to sell in the US and Canada. it doesn't matter how long it takes a retailer to sell the stock they imported, as long as it was imported BEFORE the cutoff date.

-James

I wasn't applying the statute of limitation argument to the GEM Series, but to the first group of songs they asserted.

The MCPS licensing was issued to FSC Mediaplas, which was a UK company that manufactured and sold karaoke and other discs. You are not correct about MCPS licensing not being "accepted as such in the U.S." At the time the GEM Series discs were produced and first sold, FSC Mediaplas had valid licensing to produce and sell them worldwide. The discs were the subject of a first sale (to SC) that occurred under the laws of the United Kingdom. SC imported the discs into the U.S., which it was entitled to do under the First Sale Doctrine--as the Supreme Court has recently clarified. Once the discs were first sold, the copyright in them was exhausted, and they are no longer under the control of the music publishers.

By the way, FSC Mediaplas was a real company that had customers other than SC, and Kurt did not own or control it. He did do some licensing consulting work for it, as he has done for numerous companies, but the GEM Series deal was an arms-length transaction. Mediaplas ended up going out of business because the changes to the MCPS license made its business model no longer viable.

You mean, FSC doesn't stand for Fake Sound Choice??? --couldn't resist...

It stands for "Full Sail Consultancy."

The MediaPlas that I acquired DO LOOK FAKE. The silk screening is on top off a white face instead of a silver face, and they are burned not pressed.