Karaoke Forums

Chip and I have been going back and forth on a FB forum about SC and Red Peters.

Chip claims that SC "pirated" the Red Peters tracks. I asked for proof. It only took 2 weeks for Chip to provide a small snippet from an agreement (attached).



The remainder is a copy of my response to his post on FB -

=========================================
I am not insinuating that this document isn't factual, but I am curious as to why it''s redacted. As we all know, snippets can easily taken out of context (or intentionally represented as something else).

It also references only a single Red Peters track of the 1/2 dozen or so that SC produced. Does that mean there are 5 more of these documents? Why not include all the tracks in a single agreement?

There is also nothing that explicitly states SC "pirated" or otherwise used the track without prior permission. If the roles were reversed, I am 100% certain you would call that out and demand to see that verbiage.

The partial document only gives us enough information to conclude there was an agreement made. Nothing more. Since it's redacted, we don't know if this was an extension of a previous agreement, or anything substantial for that mater.

The portions of the document, taken at face value, only state that an agreement was entered into in 2002 and that SC produced a disc with a Red Peters track on it in 1999. There is nothing that says SC did anything wrong.

In short, Chip says SC pirated the Red Peters tracks, but the document does not.

There is still much room for doubt here.

But, I am a man of my word.

Based on the very small amount of information Chip presented, it could be interpreted that SC produced ONE(1) Red Peters track prior to having permission. Thus, it could also be interpreted by some as having been pirated.

It could also be interpreted other ways. <--- This is why I believe Chip pushed back so hard. There isn't anything definitive in what Chip posted.
=========================================

_________________
-Chris

Be advised that the following is NOT what Avis has promised to do and I'm surprised that this is the best argument that Harrington could give him to throw back at me:

It is redacted because the mechanics of the contract (rate per minute, etc) is
(1) Not relevant
(2) None of your business.
Each song is a separate work (intellectual property) and requires a separate contract. The same is true with even compulsory agreements for audio-only tracks.
You are 100% wrong. I wouldn't need to see anything that is not relevant to the subject. Were you perhaps expecting to see the word "pirate"or "piracy" in the license? There is nothing in the license that is retroactive. therefore, the time period between July 1999 and Jan 2002 is purely 100% "piracy."

There is nothing in that section that is an extension of anything, period. You have all the information from this document you need that points to piracy: Who owns the property, that it is a license and that between the time of the song's release and license it was obviously pirated. (an "extention" doesn't require a entirely new license, just a stipulated agreement of the extension).

This is a license that was issued as a result of a pre-suit settlement. Harrington himself does this on a regular basis. Standard settlements, rarely - if ever - include an admission of guilt. Ask Donald Trump.

Please explain what the period of time between July 1999 and Jan, 2002 is called. It's not called "an accident" nor is it "a mistake." Not even an "undocumented licensee".... mately. If it walks like a pirate and smells like a pirate and is even dated like a pirate....

Not quite what you stated you would do, but understandable that you would want to preserve your contractual obligations with PEP regarding disparagement and not as you had promised to "out them on KS for piracy." So, you are in fact, NOT a "man of your word" and that's also not surprising.


Red Peters himself could be shouting this from the rooftops and you'd still have a problem with it.

Why don't you just admit that there could never be any evidence that would make you admit that your precious Sound Choice ever did anything wrong or illegal.

Is Harrington's collar too tight on you?

For the record: I did not provide Chris with any arguments, nor have I discussed this with him at all, except that I sent him a private message this morning and asked him to obtain and share with me the documents that were put onto Facebook. Rather than sharing them only with me, he posted them here, which is of course his prerogative.

The problem here with Mr. Staley's theory is that this agreement does not imply, much less say, that there was infringement upon the release of this disc in 1999.

The agreement is simply for a license for the continuing production and distribution of a product that was originally released in 1999. The existence of this license agreement does not preclude the possibility of a prior agreement, and certain indicia in what's presented suggests that's the case:

- License agreements generally run for 3-year terms
- The original production and release was in 1999
- This new license was issued in 2002
- There is no mention of retroactivity, of past royalties, or of any sort of claim, at least in the parts that are presented
- This license agreement actually exists and post-dates the prior release
- Red Peters has never sued SC

I do not know, and I have very little incentive to check, whether there was a prior agreement for this song. Even if I were inclined to check on the licensing status of a song from 17 years ago, not every karaoke license is an integrated agreement. We often go multiple years on a "handshake," or an email exchange, and formalize things when it's time to renew. There's a very simple reason for this: Negotiating licenses is expensive and time-consuming, especially on a song-by-song basis (and not all licenses are negotiated that way). If the more reasonable business choice is to discontinue the track, there's no reason to put together a formal agreement. It's not like the advances and royalties weren't paid.

But what I do know is that this document is not "proof" of infringement. Much to the contrary, it's proof that at least during the term of this license, whatever sales we had were not infringing. Beyond that, it says absolutely nothing. It's just a convenient innuendo.

Cue Mr. Staley, to try to rip apart my comments above.

Now you're arguing on behalf of Chris Avis? Now, THAT'S funny!

Apparently, I am "in your head rent free" much more than even I thought if you're going through your licensees to get information.

No different than your gem license that you require upon the pre-suit settlement agreement with any KJ. Those don't say that there was any infringement either.

Okay, counsel, if you're looking for an apology, show me any license from Red Peters for ANY production that was legally licensed in 1999 through 2002. But the bottom line is that you and I know that there is no such license because Slep-Tone produced, distributed, marketed and profited from UNlicensed Red Peters tracks until Slep-Tone was contacted by the attorney for the publisher demanding payment for all the unlicensed tracks. You were not around at the time, but I have first-hand knowledge.


You didn't actually read this one did you? It's not a 3-year term, it's for the length of the copyright.
When Slep-Tone "released it" has no bearing at all on whether or not it was legally licensed at the time either.
It's not a "new license" at all. It's the ONLY license.
And there doesn't have to be.
Just because Slep-Tone was caught, and had a pre-suit settlement in addition to a license, doesn't in any way, shape, or form make the prior infringement go away. (Nice try though)
He didn't need to. He had a pre-suit settlement.

Of course you would have "very little incentive" to shoot yourself in the foot too.

Yes of course, "during the term of this license, whatever sales we had were not infringing" and that's not at issue here. You and I both know that during the term between 1999 and 2002 (when most of the sales would be made anyway) it was pure infringement/piracy. Unless of course counsel, you'd care to produce a license to cover that period because your "business on a handshake" never happened.

Let me know when you have some sort intelligible and credible comments, I'm all ears.

I'm not arguing "on behalf of" anyone. I'm not even arguing. I'm pointing out that the "proof" you have offered is not proof of what you purport to be proving.



My request to Chris had nothing at all to do with you as the author, but with the fact that it was information posted in a place to which I do not have access. I asked him because I know he does have access.



(We don't "require" a GEM series license of anyone, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.)

The document you shared does not prove that there was infringement in 1999. It only proves that there was a license in 2002.



Why would I be looking for an apology? All I have done is pointed out that your "proof" isn't proof of anything.



Good for you. It's still not proof of what you say.



The excerpts you posted on FB do not mention the term at all. My suggestion about a 3-year term is based on the fact that most licenses are for 3 years, not perpetual.



I don't know that at all. You've proven nothing except that we did have a license agreement in 2002.

What does this mean (pre-suit settlement)? Does that mean that no paperwork was ever filed in the Court's System for Red Peters to sue SC? If so, how did this pre-suit settlement come into play? Did Red Peters contact SC and say something like, "If you don't pay me something for the unauthorized use of my songs, then I will take you to Court."?

That's exactly what it is.

just so i understand where this is going, unless Chip can prove with a contract that shows there was no contract before 2002 (proving a negative by showing a positive) then SC DID have a contract and did not pirate the track? the only acceptable proof of no contract would be the contract?

what if we reversed things?....

if we changed the Slep Tone name to that of any one of the "pirates" sued by ST, would the same people be standing up and saying they were not guilty because there is no contract stating that there was no contract?

no, they would not. nearly every one here would be calling for that person to be hanged from the mizzen mast for obvious piracy.

double standard kills me every time.

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

That's because:
(1) for KJ's it's "Guilty until you prove innocence" and,
(2) for SC, it's "Innocent until proven guilty."

Harrington says has no "desire" (nor incentive) to prove squat but the reality is, he says this because he has no ability to prove it.

There's no double standard, because this is not court.

When we accuse a KJ of infringement, it's based on actual proof of the infringement. In court, we can prove that the KJ does not have 1:1 correspondence between discs and the hard drive. There's no inference, no guesswork. The burden is on us to make out a prima facie case with evidence that demonstrates each element of the offense.

If this were 2002, and the facts were as Mr. Staley says they are, then Red Peters could sue, and make an assertion that he did not issue us a license, and could show that we had sold tracks embodying that song. Having a license is an affirmative defense, so it's up to us--in court--to show that we had a license.

But this is not court. We are talking about events that occurred 17 years ago. If these records exist--and I have my doubts that they do, simply because we don't keep everything forever--then perhaps I could spend time piecing together what happened. But why would I do that? Let's leave aside the fact that I'm a thousand miles away from the location where the records would be. If I could show that there was an (informal) agreement in 1999, what would it matter? Would it affect some legal standing that we have, or want to have? No. Would Mr. Staley change his opinion of us? No. He'd just move on to some other way we've supposedly wronged him, or the world.

(Even if we didn't have a license, so what? This matter was plainly resolved to the satisfaction of the only party who matters 14 years ago. None of you is Red Peters, so why do you care? Do you think it justifies piracy of our tracks today? Anyone who's not a current defendant is free to buy a license, and all will be forgiven. We won't even ask what you've been doing all these years. We don't demand constant perfection from day one.)

What we have here is a document that Mr. Staley asserted as proof that Slep-Tone "pirated" a karaoke track years ago. (That's not what piracy means, but no matter.) It does not prove what he claims. That's the only question that matters today. I have already spent more time on this than I want to, not because I can't prove something, but because I don't need to prove anything.

The point is not that it "resolved to the satisfaction of the only party who matters 14 years ago." But rather until that point of being licensed, it was still piracy.

The very same thing you claim to be suing KJ hosts and venues for – today – 17 years later.

It seems to be good enough for you to use today if you are suing other people, but not good enough to be pointed out if Slep-Tone's past activity is the one in the crosshairs and under scrutiny.

So yes, there is a double standard at work here too.

Oxford English Dictionary
piracy
noun

1[mass noun] The practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.

1.1A practice similar to piracy but in other contexts, especially hijacking.
‘air piracy’

2The unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work.
‘software piracy’


Merriam-Webster
Full Definition of piracy
plural piracies

1
: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery

2
: robbery on the high seas

3
a : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright b : the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

if there was no authorization to use his songs before 2002, would it be piracy or would both Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary be mistaken on the definition of piracy?

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

I call bullshit.

Your line of reasoning is such that a person or company is forever guilty of whatever past transgressions may have taken place even if the offending party paid their dues. And this precludes them from going after someone else for something they may well have done them selves. Not even God (if one believes in that sort of thing) holds people that accountable.

The US Government perpetrated the worst genocide in human history. How could they possibly hold any another country accountable for doing the same thing?

Drug users can quit.
Smokers can stop.
Pirates can go straight.

_________________
-Chris

Except it doesn't appear that way now does it?

You're welcome to call whatever you want, but in this case, the "past transgressions" were settled between your heroes and EMI/Sony barely over a year ago.

Hardly much time has passed and since it seems to have been happening as long ago as 17 years with numerous copyright lawsuits over hundreds of song in between, it's looking it's like it's been more of a policy than a mistake or (heaven forbid) a transgression.

seems like they went with the old cliche'. It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. They break whatever rules they want to break until they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Then they go into lawyer mode and try to weasel their way out of trouble. They should have asked for a HELP License.

The problem with this "theory" is that you're assuming that the settlement of the Sony/EMI case involved some sort of payment.

The reality is that during that case, we demonstrated that we did in fact have licenses for our production. It took so long to get to the point of settlement because it took nearly two years for Sony and EMI to prove that they owned even some of the songs they were suing over. Most of the songs on their list, they couldn't even show that they owned at all.

And you have never denied that it has involved some sort of payment and you're not now. You've simply stated that "you're assuming" and you can call it an assumption or even a guess if you like, it's no sweat off me.. The attorney for EMI has never lost a case that he has gone after – and he has the nickname among publishers as "the bulldog." If you didn't end up making a monetary settlement, there'd be nothing preventing you from stating that but you've never come right out and said; "There was no monetary settlement involved." You can insinuate that all you like.


That's it your "reality" and not mine. as a matter of fact, anyone who actually reads through all of the information filed with the court on that case, will be able to find out that, while you had some of these songs originally licensed in the US through EMI, your license agreement with them also required that you not lease any of this licensed material. When you brought your disk from your "branch company" in the UK to the United States, you began leasing that material – which was property of EMI – which breached your original licensing agreement with them in the United States.

But don't let the little facts get in your way – you spin an almost convincing yarn....

See, this is why you would never cut it as a lawyer. You miss little details that don't fit with your narrative.

What if we made a settlement agreement with them that didn't require us to pay any money, but still required us to keep the terms of that agreement, including whether or not we paid anything, confidential? (Thus allowing their attorney to keep his reputation as a "bulldog" despite being whipped. I am pretty sure he has never actually tried a case, so he's never won a case he's gone after, either.)

I can neither confirm nor deny that there was a payment involved, because our settlement agreement with them is confidential. I can confirm that we pay them their share of the publishers' pool from the HELP licensing fees.



This is what EMI alleged, but it turned out not to be the case. (That's what happens when you read complaints and assume that they're true. Often the facts turn out not to be what was alleged.)

All of the songs in question were licensed at the time of their original production. No exceptions.

All of the copies they sued over were produced in the UK by FSC Mediaplas--its own company, in which nobody involved with Slep-Tone had any ownership or control, and which licensed and produced tracks for many different companies over a 6-year period--pursuant to a license from MCPS. That license specifically permitted worldwide sales. It also specifically permitted the making of new masters, which is what happened (note that the GEM series discs have different graphics, and which the red-logo tracks that were produced by MCPS don't have a new logo on the title card, the graphics were re-mastered for that purpose.) The discs were sold outright to Slep-Tone during the time period of the license and imported into the U.S.

All of this was perfectly legal according to the terms of the license and MCPS's practices. MCPS admitted as much in an affidavit--and MCPS was the lawful agent of EMI's UK affiliates at the time the license was issued. Shortly after that affidavit was produced, the case settled.

It's time for you to stop lying. The fact that you've read EMI's accusations does not acquaint you with the facts.

It still seems that there is some really gray area, at best, when it could be perceived that two parties appear to be colluding to make money over alleged counterfeit material, while one of those companies sues individuals and businesses for the alleged illegal use of the same materials. Also, to my knowledge, I do not recall anyone shedding any real light on the legitimacy of such a scenario...

If the material is licensed, it's not counterfeit.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.