Karaoke Forums

So you don't want to do the work, learn something DEFINITE for yourself, and have the fun of proving me wrong in the process? OK. How about "Fun With Common Sense"?

You have a standard CD+g disc. You rip it to an MP3 file, thus deleting a large amount of adio information ( you do know THAT, right?). You rip using your own methods, at your own rate, on your own equipment.

1) Using the first sentence alone, please explain how the file in your computer can be the original manufacturer's product.

2) Then add to that a complete lack of manufacturer QC over your efforts, and explain how they can be held responsible for quality and content.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

1) i do not use mp3 as removing 50 to 90 percent of the data for saving a bit of super cheap drive space seems backwards to me,i use .wav, technically .bin an exact bit for bit copy of the disc (i did random md5 checksums to check i got it all)
however in that instance i see the point you make as it would no longer be the EXACT same as the disc.

2) the MD5 shows that my efforts are an accurate copy, with written permission by the way, of the original product so i do not see this as any different than the disc pressing company goofing up and sending, for example, a Taylor Swift disc that has no graphics. it happened, more than once, but since the original sent to them was a digital file, does that make the manu any less responsible for the content because the pressing company did not get all the 0's and 1's that were in the original file? hell, i have an old backstage disc with nothing on it at all....totally blank (garage sale finds) does it not stand to reason that the pressed discs can be less than complete data reproduction? they are still held responsible for quality and content.

you still have not answered the question of where did you see this law you are quoting? i HAVE looked and can not find it, hence my asking.
i doubt i am the only one who can not find this law. giving the link can only prove you right and give more strength to your arguments.
if i had the information, i would post it to show whatever it shows, but i do not.

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

And you know all this information by what authority. And Kurt's last name is Slep. You are sadly misinformed, I bet you sell copied hardrives don't you?

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

[quote][/quWho are you (or your association) to demand any kind of compliance for any condition? Especially since you would be considered a competitor? While your idea is a noble one, I believe it is treading a legal tight-wire....
ote]

No more than any other professional association, be it lawyers, doctors, engineers. All competitors, yet all have to achieve/abide to an industry standard, investigated and disciplined by their peers.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Joe,

On another thread you mentioned my use of "pirate supporter" on another site and I answered that on that thread but I thought you might like to see a perfect example of what I was talking about.

Read the qoute below and tell me how many of the statements in that quote that you have made numerous times.



The simple truth of the matter is that Sound Choice is in fact filing suits and no matter how hard you try to undermine that effort, all you are really doing is giving fodder to those that are truly pirates, it certainly isn't going to stop Sound Choice's efforts, but what it does do is emboldens pirates to continue their actions. The end results of your efforts will mean a greater amount of time spent by the manus fighting piracy and more pirates (who would have gotten out of the business except for the efforts of those who would embolden them) that will eventually settle or be destroyed in court. With so many pirates who have been named rushing to purchase disc and asking to go through the audit or settling, or those who vow to fight through court and then settling, which efforts do you really think you are doing harm to. I am really starting to feel sorry for the pirates because many of them would have simply folded up shop before a lawsuit was filed against them except for the efforts made by some to undermine what Sound Choice and Chartbuster are doing.

It really is sad to watch in a way.

Why sad? I'd think SC would be happy as hog.... more pirates = more settlements and means more dollars.... cha-ching!

Remember the object of this exercise from SC is "make customers out of pirates" not to put anyone out of business....

I am not saying it is a bad thing for Sound Choice, it will certainly increase their revenues, it is sad to watch these pirates get their backs up because of the support that is given to them on these forums only to be smacked down and have to settle, some for more than they would have had to pay if they had just settled in the begining.

It is also sad because it emboldens other to become pirates adding to an already saturated market.

That's not sad... it's just!

Yes it is just, the sad part is knowing that many of them would have folded and disappeared except for the support they are receiving from people on the forums.

We've told you publicly before that this is NOT TRUE. We respectfully request you stop disseminating false information regarding Chartbuster Karaoke and our licensing.

For the avoidance of doubt, we will state here very clearly for you:
1) We have no unlicensed songs under release.
2) There are no "permanent" (or "temporary") injunctions pending or active regarding our releases.
3) We are not involved in an outstanding licensing lawsuit.

Please make a note of these facts, and refrain from making contrary statements on public forums in the future.

Thank you.

Make up your mind.

It's either "sad" that they didn't "fold up and disappear" (which translates to MORE money for SC),

OR,

It's "sad" that they end up paying MORE MONEY to SC then they would have had to....


Apparently, you don't see the common denominators here:

a) SC gets paid either way

b) pirates stay in business.

and

c) neither (a) or (b) helps YOU at all...

Apparently not!

But it isn't my fault you can't understand what is being said!

Let's tell the WHOLE TRUTH here shall we?

In regard to:

#1. The operative phrase here is "under release" is it not? Isn't it true that FOR YEARS, you had produced, pressed, distributed, marketed and sold thousands of discs with tracks marked "Used by Permission" when in fact they were NOT licensed - at the time of their release - at all?

It is also true that at one time, you ended up with judgments against you that totaled approximately $2,750,000.00? (that's TWO MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS) for willful copyright infringement?

#2: While there IS a permanent injunction agreement filed with the court (which you agreed to) there just doesn't seem to be any corresponding order that vacates, dismisses, nullifies, removes or revokes that injunction or any other judgment against you. Would you care to post that to prove you do not?

#3. "We are not involved in an outstanding licensing lawsuit" means "currently not involved" not that you've never been there.

Chip,

Are you saying that Chartbuster is being deceitful with everyone here?


Or are you just making blanket accusations hoping something will stick?

It is true that for three years following the ABKCO ruling, there was no such thing as a license specifically for karaoke. The publishers could not get their stuff together, even though we pleaded with them to write us licenses that reflected the ABKCO ruling appropriately. As the new license had not yet been "invented," we licensed using our standard rules prior to the ABKCO ruling.

This is what dealing with publishers is like, sometimes. They didn't understand, or care, that we could not go without new releases for three years. They would have been perfectly fine with karaoke disappearing entirely. For us this was not an option, obviously, so we continued to apply the licensing rules previous to ABKCO. When the publishers finally got around to writing video sync licenses, they sued for back royalties for the preceding three years.



A judgment that was drastically reduced by the presiding judge, after we showed him three years of correspondence between our offices and the publishers, pleading for the appropriate licenses under ABKCO. That's how it played out in the end.



That's easy enough - just look at our current releases. We have licensing with all the majors, including the one named in that injunction.



See above.

What you're really attempting to justify is that although publishers did NOT license anything, you decided to provide your own remedy by "self-licensing" this music. Nice story, still not proper licensing no matter how you try to explain it away.

How about I use the same philosophy? "Gee, SC and Chartbusters won't give me permission to copy their tracks to a computer even though I've asked so in order to stay competitive, I simply decided that it would be okay on my own."



Show us the judge's order that superseded and/or reduced a previous court order. It's not an "agreement" it would have to be a COURT ORDER because I doubt the publishers -after getting a large judgment- would simply sit by while it was reduced. Don't point to a search engine, don't require that anyone drive to your office, just make a pdf and show it. Consider it a challenge if you like because I doubt you'll do it.



Your "current releases" mean nothing. PROVE THE LICENSING. You either can't or won't. So put away the smoke and mirrors. You want your own customers to "prove" they have purchased your product, how about extending the same standard to yourself and "prove" you have the right to manufacture it in the first place? Another challenge for you to dodge.



Above what? Would you like me to post the lawsuit(s) here? To use your own terms: There's a lot of "chin-wagging" coming from your direction and not much else.

Yes, there is a lot of chin wagging without substance but it all seems to be coming from one or two people!

You two must be real bitter about what is going on with the Manus!

I'm not "attempting" to "justify" anything, I'm simply telling you how it was. We applied for and received our licenses through agencies just as we had for the preceding period before ABKCO. When it turned out that the publishers wanted more, that "more" was applied retroactively.



Be my guest. Just don't be surprised if the same thing that happened to us happens to you as a result.



Beats me where it's at, likely in some filing cabinet at one of our lawyer's offices. Besides, why should you care what the amount ended up being? Your point was that we'd had to pay damages, which we've already said was the case.



Put me down for "won't". If a publisher wants to see them, they are welcome to inspect them. You have no horse in that race, sir. But as I said, you need only look at our current releases. If your characterization of the licensing issues we've had in the past are on the level of "sky is falling" catastrophe that you imply, then why would we risk it happening again?

We're not hiding behind any cross-border licensing barrier, or counting on labyrinthine import laws to protect us. We're out in the open, licensing, manufacturing, and selling in the US, operating the highest-profile and most prolific karaoke business in the Western hemisphere. If we were doing as you seem to suggest, we'd get slapped down by the publishers very quickly. When it comes to karaoke, we're the biggest blip on their radar.





"See above" as in "the answer to your question was already answered in the preceding text." You asked if we'd ever been in a licensing lawsuit. The answer was there for you to read (and in fact was rhetorical anyway, since you already knew the answer).

Dear Chartbusters..

You obviously felt wronged in the abkco case. You certainly disagreed with it enough to fight it. You obviously think the laws stink.

Go write your congressman, and stop bickering on Internet forums. It might not hurt to offer to your congressman "Hey, help me out, I'll give your son/neice/nephew a job" This is how it works. Might not even be a job offer, you can be slicker than that. "I want to contribute $2500 to causes that you're concerned with congressman" and contribute to 4 or 5 candidates of their choosing.

Have you done this? Why do I have to be the one to do it for you. Haven't you ever taken a civics class? Don't you understand how our legislative process works? Can you tell me the 3 branches of Government?

By doing nothing to change these laws, you do nothing to help yourself, help us, help nobody. It just empowers the pirates even more, because as we sit here going back and forth bickering, the pirates are stealing food from our tables.

Your groups statements of tricera's mp3 downloads being illegal, using transformed media illegal, which if you're right (and this is why I am contacting my congress now) I have broken the law 444 times. You come here like Calvary when Thunder and Athena get checked. You basically flip a huge middle finger at all of us that make software to run karaoke. Adding further to my own confusion about you, you use a PC based system at big mamas. I know I've contacted you, Tricera worked with you at one time, but you/SC continually just backpedel on moving the industry forward.

But go on, keep fanning the fires here. We can have another record year in the NAMM global music report as "The biggest losers" Seriously, let's stop being Bi-Polar, and start being Bi-winning.

_________________
Living my life as Robert Cortese, 162 E. Jackson St, San Jose CA.

It's like the difference between high and low budget toilet paper, it really doesn't matter in the end. -exweedfarmer

Which is smarter? Just sticking to making/selling karaoke, while people all over the world create software FOR FREE that helps you sell it, or trying to compete with them and keeping it a closed loop while you blow your money into an industry (software) that you(the karaoke manu) knows nothing about?
-me

While gratifying, letters to Congress aren't particularly effective. We prefer spending time and money in support of professional trade organizations, on whom we rely to pursue goals nominally in line with our own.



Noted without comment.



Civics was still taught when I was in high school, though it after became "social studies", and worse. However, our efforts towards involving government have been quite effective so far, especially as we've been working on it for a relatively short time. That you are not privy to the details does not mean that we are inactive, nor does it give you the right to upbraid us for it.



I'm not sure where this invective is coming from, unless you just felt the need to vent your spleen, in which case I suppose it's understandable. We are after all the only manufacturer who makes itself available for discourse on these and other forums.



Apparently you are unaware that we are both capable of maintaining a social media presence, and working to curtail piracy simultaneously.