KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - Ok, I am going to be converting everything to MP4 Public Forums Karaoke Discussions Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums Home | Contact Us | Site Map  

Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene

   
  * Login
  * Register

  * FAQ
  * Search

Custom Search

Social Networks


premium-member

Offsite Links


It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:43 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 6:50 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 398
Been Liked: 234 times
DannyG2006 wrote:
I personally think that most companies are not going to like my defense. Gee judge, I can produce every receptor disc to prove the manufacturer got paid. Now they are telling me that I am not allowed to protect my investment by converting my files into a theft proof format. PowerKaraoke has two ways of protecting the Karaoke Host's library. Their first program places either a water mark. The problem with that is that if the thief is bright enough they can circumvent that feature. By embedding my logo behind the lyrics in an MP4 file,I think I have a better way to identify stolen material and I can produce enough evidence for trademark because anyone who sees my logo behind the lyrics are being tricked into thinking that my company is running the show.


Whether or not most companies will like your defense is irrelevant. However on the other hand, I can assure you that no judge will be the least bit persuaded by your argument, nor even be mildly amused. Whether or not the "manufacturer" got paid is again irrelevant. The issue isn't copyright infringement it's trademark infringement. I'm trying very hard to find some logic to your argument but I'm afraid it totally escapes me, but for the sake of discussion let's address your straw man argument anyway.

So you're attempting to argue that the "manufacturers" are trying to prevent you from "protecting" your investment, by not allowing you to convert your files to a "theft proof format". (whatever that means because what you've described is not a different format, it's the same format with embedded graphics). Of course you have zero evidence of anyone ever having forbade you from protecting your investment. If you're main interest was to protect your investment then you need to keep your "investment" in a secure location at all times and especially when not in use. Sounds pretty simple to me! Secondly, you can and should (just as I'm willing to wager that you probably already have) make a backup copy of your "investment". Would seem lke a hell of a lot less work than embedding files into existing ones. Thirdly, you can't break the law to "protect your investment!" Last but not least it isn't the "manufacturers" telling you that you're not allowed to embed logos into content you do not own, it's the LAW!!! Remember, you do not own the content. Your ownership is limited to the media by which the content was purchased and the license to use that content subject to the terms and conditions of that license whether expressed or implied, that is of course if you legally purchased it to begin with.

So to be clear, it is not possible to "steal" intellectual property. It's only possible to infringe on it. If someone steals your CD+Gs, or your hard drive, what they stole was your CD+G discs or your physical drive which is of course rightfully your property. The content on those CD+Gs and hard drive is not your property. Even if it were (which of course it isn't) it wouldn't have been stolen. It's not like "real" property whereby if someone steals your bicycle you no longer have use of that bicycle. With intellectual property the rights holder still has use of the property and can make new discs or hard drives or other media and/or other distribution facilities.

As far as PowerKaraoke is concerned, the "watermark" feature allows content owners to embed watermarks into their content. It is not intended (or at least it shouldn't be intended in the US market) to be used by karaoke hosts to embed their watermarks into content they do not own. Of course Piotr is from Poland and it is possible that the laws in Poland are quite different than they are here in the U.S. but you are not allowed to do that here in the USA. Also, you gave the perfect example of exactly why the Lanham act was legislated. You stated that "anyone who sees my logo behind the lyrics are being tricked into thinking that my company is running the show (which of course has absolutely nothing to do with stealing your investment as you originally stated)." Actually Danny, it's probably more likely that they would be tricked into thinking that it was your company that produced the product. I'm not an attorney so I can't quote black letter law and verse without further research, but I'm pretty sure that embedding your watermarks into someone else's content is illegal. Bottom line ... altering or adding marks in any way to the content is a violation of the Lanham Act. There may also be some copyright issues here if the content itself is somehow altered but nothing comes to mind immediately, and is a separate animal unto itself.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 6:59 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 463
Been Liked: 117 times
What I've been doing a lot lately is merging/blending the original artists audio and video tracks with karaoke

I own a large collection of videos (I'm a long time user of Promo Only Services), and I've been using Dex 3.0 from PCDJ to play the karaoke tracks over the videos. My singers and the bar seems to enjoy it. I can also do the reverse, playing the videos audio while muting the karaoke track.

When doing kids parties, I put Dex in 4 deck mode also use the original song with the karaoke tracks. This gives the kids the audio cues to sing the works and they get that karaoke feel. By putting the software in 4 deck mode, I can cue up the 2nd song so i can transition easily.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 3:03 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 4308
Songs: 1
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 199 times
Ok, how's this defense, since the only company suing right now is PEP, I signed a contract with them over use of their content on computer and a contract when I leased their GEM Series. I am the only company in the area if they chose to sue here anyway. They are well aware of the theft issue that I had in the past. I am confused with them having trouble with me making it easier for them to spot a copyright infringer while they instead go after one of their own certified hosts.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 9:18 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 398
Been Liked: 234 times
Toastedmuffin wrote:
What I've been doing lately is merging/blending the original artists audio and video tracks with karaoke

I own a large collection of videos (I'm a long time user of Promo Only Services), and I've been using Dex 3.0 from PCDJ to play the karaoke tracks over the videos. My singers and the bar seems to enjoy it. I can also do the reverse, playing the videos audio while muting the karaoke track.

When doing kids parties, I put Dex in 4 deck mode also use the original song with the karaoke tracks. This gives the kids the audio cues to sing the works and they get that karaoke feel. By putting the software in 4 deck mode, I can cue up the 2nd song so i can transition easily.

Here again, this is something I would not do without having consulted with an attorney and given clearance to do so. It's an interesting question as to whether or not this is legal considering that this is not actually altering any content itself but is being done in real time. My guess is that it probably isn't legal to do without some sort of license. Whether or not it is covered under a venue's performance license would be the first place I would inquire. In reiterating the point I made to Danny, unless you are totally unconcerned about the legality of your actions, it would be wise to consult with a competent IP attorney to better understand what legal exposures you may have if any. Also, I guess it would be worth mentioning that in my opinion, some of these laws are a bit ridiculous and too far reaching. With that in mind I only offer my opinion based on what I interpret the law to mean, and not as to whether or not I agree with it.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 9:21 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 398
Been Liked: 234 times
DannyG2006 wrote:
Ok, how's this defense, since the only company suing right now is PEP
How can you be so sure about that? I suspect you might be mistaken.

DannyG2006 wrote:
I am confused with them having trouble with me making it easier for them to spot a copyright infringer
The point you seem to be missing here Danny is that this is a matter of law, not a matter of policy. Your one and only concern here should be if it is legal to embed your logo into the content or not. The best way to not have any company "go after" one of their own certified hosts is to operate within the law. You're not suggesting something to the contrary are you?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 9:42 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 4308
Songs: 1
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 199 times
Then I guess I have to tip the crooks off by asking if they go by the forum name of of Bazza on Karaoke Scene Forum if I see a host using GEM Series songs since I know that there's only three of us in the state that legally have the series.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 10:00 am 
Online
Super Extreme Poster
Super Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22328
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 1914 times
Bastiat wrote:
Here again, this is something I would not do without having consulted with an attorney and given clearance to do so. It's an interesting question as to whether or not this is legal considering that this is not actually altering any content itself but is being done in real time. My guess is that it probably isn't legal to do without some sort of license. Whether or not it is covered under a venue's performance license would be the first place I would inquire. In reiterating the point I made to Danny, unless you are totally unconcerned about the legality of your actions, it would be wise to consult with a competent IP attorney to better understand what legal exposures you may have if any. Also, I guess it would be worth mentioning that in my opinion, some of these laws are a bit ridiculous and too far reaching. With that in mind I only offer my opinion based on what I interpret the law to mean, and not as to whether or not I agree with it.
I don't see how there would be any issue if it's done in real time (no altering the file). Many of the softwares have this ability and even the old JVC and DK cdg players (early 90's) had the ability to add an external video source for pictures/slideshows/graphis or videos to play under the words.

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


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 12:23 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:54 am
Posts: 292
Been Liked: 114 times
Now I find myself wondering if every library in the US is an infringer of book publishers' trademarks, because they all rubber stamp "Property Of ____ Library" inside every volume. The words "Property Of.." are after all not part of the original IP. Yet one cannot read the book without seeing them.

I've bought many a used book with annotations written on various pages by the original owner. Could be they broke a law!


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 4:59 pm 
Offline
Major Poster
Major Poster

Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:28 pm
Posts: 66
Been Liked: 19 times
I have what might be a possible solution to Dannyg's problem of identifying his tracks with his company logo. Create a silent CD+G file that claims ownership of the following karaoke track. Have this CD+G file have your logo as the background. Attach this CD+G file to the beginning and end of every karaoke track that you own. It then becomes one CD+G file with your special screen at the beginning and end of every song. The special CD+G portion could say something like: The Following karaoke track is the property of DannyG Karaoke. Someone with the proper software could probably remove those few seconds from the beginning of each track but it would at least be time consuming enough for them to not wish to bother with it.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 5:00 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 398
Been Liked: 234 times
DannyG2006 wrote:
Then I guess I have to tip the crooks off by asking if they go by the forum name of of Bazza on Karaoke Scene Forum if I see a host using GEM Series songs since I know that there's only three of us in the state that legally have the series.

Aren't we getting a bit dramatic here? In the first place how would you know if a SC song was purchased on a CD+G 10 years ago or from a GEM series last year? I kind of doubt that there are only 3 legitimate SC products in the entire state of Connecticut. Stellar's sales office was in downtown New London, CT so we got to know several KJs in CT and I can tell you for sure that there were many legitimate KJs that owned products from all producers including Sound Choice. It sounds to me like you're real agenda here is to embed your logo into someone else's product. All you really need to do is make a backup of your library and secure your media.

Lonman wrote:
I don't see how there would be any issue if it's done in real time (no altering the file). Many of the softwares have this ability and even the old JVC and DK cdg players (early 90's) had the ability to add an external video source for pictures/slideshows/graphis or videos to play under the words.

I don't know for sure one way or the other as to whether or not the scenario we are referring to is legal, but as a content creator I do know enough on the subject to not assume anything is legal without first getting the opinion of a qualified IP attorney. Bear in mind that what we are describing in this real time performance is a "pubic performance" and is subject to the rules and terms of a public performance license i.e. ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. The question becomes ... does the described activity fall within the terms of the PRO license? If not, and if the performance cannot be categorized as a "fair use" then it is an infringement remembering that "fair use" is not a license, but a defense in the absence of one. Also, just because a software app is capable of certain functions does not mean that those functions can be used unlicensed. A garden variety CD+G player can play karaoke formatted music, but it is not legal to do so publicly if the proper public performance licenses have not been acquired.

As far as being able to see "issues" when done in real time, I can think of a few off the top of my head, but I'll leave you with just this one. Let's say that a patron was singing "You Light Up My Life" by Debbie Boone and the KJ decided to show a collection of Stormy Daniels porn videos in the background, I can see where Ms. Boone might get a little upset, and might even file suit against the KJ and/or venue.

Elementary Penguin wrote:
Now I find myself wondering if every library in the US is an infringer of book publishers' trademarks, because they all rubber stamp "Property Of ____ Library" inside every volume. The words "Property Of.." are after all not part of the original IP. Yet one cannot read the book without seeing them.

I've bought many a used book with annotations written on various pages by the original owner. Could be they broke a law!

This is really not the same thing at all. You're confusing the material object with the content. Libraries or anyone for that matter can stamp whatever they choose on the material object (i.e. the book itself), just as you can stamp your "Property of Elementary Penquin" stamp on your CD+Gs or your hard drive case or your books, etc. You do own those material objects and they are indeed your property. You can also annotate your property as you see fit. If you sold the book with your annotations on it, and if an author or publisher objected and filed suit, I'm certain it would pass the "fair use" test. Of course I don't think anyone is so far out of their tits that they would sue someone for annotating inside of a book that they ended up selling on the used market.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 5:31 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 4308
Songs: 1
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 199 times
Bastiat wrote:
DannyG2006 wrote:
I personally think that most companies are not going to like my defense. Gee judge, I can produce every receptor disc to prove the manufacturer got paid. Now they are telling me that I am not allowed to protect my investment by converting my files into a theft proof format. PowerKaraoke has two ways of protecting the Karaoke Host's library. Their first program places either a water mark. The problem with that is that if the thief is bright enough they can circumvent that feature. By embedding my logo behind the lyrics in an MP4 file,I think I have a better way to identify stolen material and I can produce enough evidence for trademark because anyone who sees my logo behind the lyrics are being tricked into thinking that my company is running the show.


Whether or not most companies will like your defense is irrelevant. However on the other hand, I can assure you that no judge will be the least bit persuaded by your argument, nor even be mildly amused. Whether or not the "manufacturer" got paid is again irrelevant. The issue isn't copyright infringement it's trademark infringement. I'm trying very hard to find some logic to your argument but I'm afraid it totally escapes me, but for the sake of discussion let's address your straw man argument anyway.

So you're attempting to argue that the "manufacturers" are trying to prevent you from "protecting" your investment, by not allowing you to convert your files to a "theft proof format". (whatever that means because what you've described is not a different format, it's the same format with embedded graphics). Of course you have zero evidence of anyone ever having forbade you from protecting your investment. If you're main interest was to protect your investment then you need to keep your "investment" in a secure location at all times and especially when not in use. Sounds pretty simple to me! Secondly, you can and should (just as I'm willing to wager that you probably already have) make a backup copy of your "investment". Would seem lke a hell of a lot less work than embedding files into existing ones. Thirdly, you can't break the law to "protect your investment!" Last but not least it isn't the "manufacturers" telling you that you're not allowed to embed logos into content you do not own, it's the LAW!!! Remember, you do not own the content. Your ownership is limited to the media by which the content was purchased and the license to use that content subject to the terms and conditions of that license whether expressed or implied, that is of course if you legally purchased it to begin with.

So to be clear, it is not possible to "steal" intellectual property. It's only possible to infringe on it. If someone steals your CD+Gs, or your hard drive, what they stole was your CD+G discs or your physical drive which is of course rightfully your property. The content on those CD+Gs and hard drive is not your property. Even if it were (which of course it isn't) it wouldn't have been stolen. It's not like "real" property whereby if someone steals your bicycle you no longer have use of that bicycle. With intellectual property the rights holder still has use of the property and can make new discs or hard drives or other media and/or other distribution facilities.

As far as PowerKaraoke is concerned, the "watermark" feature allows content owners to embed watermarks into their content. It is not intended (or at least it shouldn't be intended in the US market) to be used by karaoke hosts to embed their watermarks into content they do not own. Of course Piotr is from Poland and it is possible that the laws in Poland are quite different than they are here in the U.S. but you are not allowed to do that here in the USA. Also, you gave the perfect example of exactly why the Lanham act was legislated. You stated that "anyone who sees my logo behind the lyrics are being tricked into thinking that my company is running the show (which of course has absolutely nothing to do with stealing your investment as you originally stated)." Actually Danny, it's probably more likely that they would be tricked into thinking that it was your company that produced the product. I'm not an attorney so I can't quote black letter law and verse without further research, but I'm pretty sure that embedding your watermarks into someone else's content is illegal. Bottom line ... altering or adding marks in any way to the content is a violation of the Lanham Act. There may also be some copyright issues here if the content itself is somehow altered but nothing comes to mind immediately, and is a separate animal unto itself.

From Pro's website
Business Name Location Licenses
Danny G's Karaoke Waterbury, CT [21 MI] Sound Choice CertifiedGEM Series License
WLRR Karaoke Monroe, CT [36 MI] GEM Series License

The top one is me. Technically I can still claim to be the only certified host in all of CT. Yes I am sure that a lot of the companies bought Sound Choice products but they don't adhere to Pep's conditions for running them on a computer. Certified means going through the steps to be granted the right to run a show on computer with their permission. I am one of two that have the GEM Series set.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 4:53 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 398
Been Liked: 234 times
DannyG2006 wrote:
The top one is me. Technically I can still claim to be the only certified host in all of CT. Yes I am sure that a lot of the companies bought Sound Choice products but they don't adhere to Pep's conditions for running them on a computer. Certified means going through the steps to be granted the right to run a show on computer with their permission. I am one of two that have the GEM Series set.

Danny, I hate to burst your bubble but there is no such thing as a KJ "Certification" in Connecticut or any other state for that matter. If you're selling yourself to potential clients as the only "certified" host in CT then you are grossly misleading your clients. Other than having a certified SC library, having Sound Choice "certify" your library doesn't make you certified anything. It doesn't speak to the rest of the content in your library nor does it make you any more legit than any other KJ that legally purchased their content.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 7:32 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 4308
Songs: 1
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 199 times
Bastiat wrote:
DannyG2006 wrote:
The top one is me. Technically I can still claim to be the only certified host in all of CT. Yes I am sure that a lot of the companies bought Sound Choice products but they don't adhere to Pep's conditions for running them on a computer. Certified means going through the steps to be granted the right to run a show on computer with their permission. I am one of two that have the GEM Series set.

Danny, I hate to burst your bubble but there is no such thing as a KJ "Certification" in Connecticut or any other state for that matter. If you're selling yourself to potential clients as the only "certified" host in CT then you are grossly misleading your clients. Other than having a certified SC library, having Sound Choice "certify" your library doesn't make you certified anything. It doesn't speak to the rest of the content in your library nor does it make you any more legit than any other KJ that legally purchased their content.

Sorry but I disagree with your last statement, I still subscribe to the belief that the karaoke manufacturer has the right to dictate what rights that you have in use of product. I believe in no unauthorized duplication of the disc to include converting to computer format. So yes if it means being certified by being audited then those who don't get certified deserve to be sued for unauthorized duplication of the content and are running illegally. They may have purchased their discs legally but they have failed to follow the guidelines to legally use it on the computer. So yes there's a difference between me and them.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 11:14 am 
Online
Super Extreme Poster
Super Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22328
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 1914 times
DannyG2006 wrote:
Sorry but I disagree with your last statement, I still subscribe to the belief that the karaoke manufacturer has the right to dictate what rights that you have in use of product. I believe in no unauthorized duplication of the disc to include converting to computer format. So yes if it means being certified by being audited then those who don't get certified deserve to be sued for unauthorized duplication of the content and are running illegally. They may have purchased their discs legally but they have failed to follow the guidelines to legally use it on the computer. So yes there's a difference between me and them.

So you still run disc for those disc manufacturers that are long gone and can't give you 'authorized' duplication to transfer to computer?

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


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 12:20 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 4308
Songs: 1
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 199 times
No if the long gone manufacturers never chose to enact policies on media shifting then they lost that right to refuse to allow it when they ceased to exist. If our representitive from Stellar wants to inventory his songs in my library, I am more than willing to oblige. Just pm me if you are interested.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 12:23 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 398
Been Liked: 234 times
DannyG2006 wrote:
Sorry but I disagree with your last statement, I still subscribe to the belief that the karaoke manufacturer has the right to dictate what rights that you have in use of product. I believe in no unauthorized duplication of the disc to include converting to computer format. So yes if it means being certified by being audited then those who don't get certified deserve to be sued for unauthorized duplication of the content and are running illegally. They may have purchased their discs legally but they have failed to follow the guidelines to legally use it on the computer. So yes there's a difference between me and them.

No need to be sorry for expressing your opinion. Nevertheless you can disagree all you want but this isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of law and you don't need the producer's (we're not "manufacturers", we don't manufacture anything) permission to copy your CD+Gs to your hard drive. It may very well be your "belief", but hell I was born a Catholic that attended parochial school and at one point I believed all kinds of shyte that just ain't true. Also it is not the producers that dictate what rights you have in the product, rather it's the owner of the musical composition/publisher that sets the terms and conditions for use of the sound recording which in turn dictates to the producer how it can be used. It's not the other way around. If you think that there is a difference between you and someone who has legally purchased a CD+G and copied it to a hard drive you are sadly misinformed. There is no difference! Having said that, I think a little common sense is in order here. What harm is done to any producer if their content is being played from a hard drive as opposed to a CD? Would the patrons even know the difference? As they say ... no harm, no foul. If there are no damages that can be claimed in a suit, then there is no basis for a suit to begin with. Therefore copying to your hard drive is not making "unauthorized" copies. When you state that " They may have purchased their discs legally but they have failed to follow the guidelines to legally use it on the computer.", you are unquestionably incorrect. The laws governing these matters are determined by the legislature not by some karaoke label.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 12:24 pm 
Online
Super Extreme Poster
Super Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22328
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 1914 times
LMAO many companies never had the option to say it was ok or not because it really didn't exist when they went under (or never had proper licensing to begin with lol).

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


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 12:40 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 4308
Songs: 1
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 199 times
I just got off the phone with Steve Boone from PEP and I now have Kurt's permission to convert to MP4. They are very interested in my idea. As long as my logo is in the corner of the graphic I am good to go with both Sound Choice and Chartbuster.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 3:31 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:54 am
Posts: 292
Been Liked: 114 times
DannyG2006 wrote:
I just got off the phone with Steve Boone from PEP and I now have Kurt's permission to convert to MP4. They are very interested in my idea. As long as my logo is in the corner of the graphic I am good to go with both Sound Choice and Chartbuster.
But do remember, just because PEP is okay with you doing something doesn't change any laws that apply to that something.

Of course the obverse is just as true. Just because PEP may object to something also in no way changes the actual law. Recall in 4 federal court districts now that media shifting of Sound Choice and Chartbuster content has been determined to be okay; it's not "illegal" no matter how much PEP might say they hate it. Even if you're the only PEP-certified KJ in your state, that doesn't make you the only legal KJ in your state.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 5:11 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 398
Been Liked: 234 times
DannyG2006 wrote:
No if the long gone manufacturers never chose to enact policies on media shifting then they lost that right to refuse to allow it when they ceased to exist. If our representitive from Stellar wants to inventory his songs in my library, I am more than willing to oblige. Just pm me if you are interested.

Danny, holy cow! I don't think you're comprehending the issue. Whether or not the "manufacturers" chose to enact policies on media shifting is IRRELEVANT. They didn't lose that right because they never had such a right in the first place. You should do a bit of legal research on this issue before you put forth these arguments based on a false premise. There is enough case law on the books that has settled this issue a long time ago. You don't need permission of any sort to media shift the content you legally purchased. Period, end of story!!!

I have no interest whatsoever now nor did I ever have any interest in inventorying someone's library. With that being said, I'm glad that you were able to get Pep to accommodate you in adding your logo. It might be a good idea to get it in writing. Not that I think that Pep would renege on their approval, but sometimes when years pass and no one remembers what was said, problems can arise. Nevertheless, I do not grant permission to anyone to embed, alter, or delete in whole or in part, any of the graphics and lyrics displays that accompany the audio tracks. The same goes for the audio. I do not grant permission to add, alter, edit or delete in whole or in part, the audio in any way other than key changes or fade outs to accompany the live performance. However any key changes or fade outs are limited to real time applications only. Even if I were willing to allow you to embed your logos in my content (which I am not), in some cases I may not even have the authority to allow you to do so. "Sync" licenses can be very specific as to what a particular publisher will allow and I am not about to go through 15,000 sync licenses to determine which if any publishers will not allow graphic images in certain areas of a song.

BTW, I didn't realize that Steve Boone still worked for Kurt. Steve is one of the nicest human beings on the planet, and one of the very few people in the karaoke biz that I can honestly say that I like. Not that Kurt isn't a likable guy because he is once you get to know him, but Steve really is special.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 98 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Privacy Policy | Anti-Spam Policy | Acceptable Use Policy Copyright © Karaoke Scene Magazine
design & hosting by Cross Web Tech