KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - If PEP stopped suing? Public Forums Karaoke Discussions Karaoke Legalities & Piracy, etc... 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


wordpress-hosting

Offsite Links


It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:43 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 267 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:37 pm 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:16 pm
Posts: 2027
Location: HIgh River, AB
Been Liked: 268 times
Karaoke Croaker wrote:
jclaydon wrote:
Karaoke Croaker wrote:
jclaydon wrote:
Karaoke Croaker wrote:
Would anyone confuse this karaoke file with a Sound Choice karaoke track? Would one of their top notch investigators be able to tell if this started out as a Sound Choice Karaoke track? If they don't allow you to display their logo; just remove it. I asked an old friend of mine to do this for me just to prove a point. there is no actual karaoke company called Rainbow Karaoke.

{link removed}


Forgetting the legal stuff, yes I knew IMMEDIATELY because of the TITLE screen. The colors and font are EXACTLY the same. I believe that's what Jim called 'Trade Dress"


-James


You must be wearing Sound Choice colored glasses where everything looks like a Sound Choice track. I don't believe Sound Choice uses a Comic sans font ever!


Nope. just in case it wasn't clear, I was talking about the title screen. The word HELP is in purple and looks exactly like the title screen of the sound choice track.

The other tip off, tho not as obvious, was the music staff.


The music staff is one of the default options in the program, "Power Karaoke" You would have gotten the same screen even if he had used a Nutech Track. and Sound Choice doesn't own any particular colors. Sound Choice also uses ALL CAPS for lyrics. I guess some people will see what they want to see. It must have been good enough to piss off Jim because he had Lonnie remove the links... which proves that a Sound Choice investigator, or anyone but YOU would ever confuse these files with Sound Choice copies. Gemini can constantly plug Karaoke Versions web site and their Hamilton tracks but my links get deleted because they show people how to beat the law suit scams of the man behind the curtain. By the way; the word HELP is in GREEN on the Sound Choice Title screen. Not purple. The font is also not the same. One of us must be color blind. Maybe it's me. Who Knows?


Nope it isn't you, I went and checked. The two colors were different, and yes the lyrics to the actual song were in a different font altho as I stated TWICE this is about the beginning splash/title screen only for me.

The purple color is a very common color in soundchoice tracks and the font reminded me of some of their other tracks. I didn't even know it was deliberate until I read your whole original post, because I just clicked on the link and immediately after the title screen I thought to myself "Wait a second, something isn't right.. It sounds like the beatles track that I have from my GEM set, but the logo says power karaoke" that's when I went back and read your original post. So ya, I guess I did see what I wanted to see, but I was still right without knowing the reason.

-James


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:09 pm 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:16 pm
Posts: 2027
Location: HIgh River, AB
Been Liked: 268 times
JimHarrington wrote:
I understand your position. I understand the optics from your perspective, about how it's not fair for some people, for a small fee, to get access to a product that cost you thousands of dollars.

I get that it's not fair.

Just like it was unfair that the desktop computer I took to college cost $2000, when kids today can get a much more powerful laptop for $200 or less.

There are 30,000 or more operators in the US, and 90-95% of them are pirates to some degree. There is a lot of turnover. We can't possibly sue them all. We could file new lawsuits against 4 operators every business day for the next 26 years and only cover the people who are pirates today. So HELP is a compromise. Rather than waiting to be sued, operators can step out of piracy for a reasonable price. We have tried to set the pricing in a way that balances all of the competing interests--our reasonable profit, the needs of our participating publishers, existing licensees and disc owners, and operators who want to pay for their music.

I'm sorry that you're unhappy that this program exists. But it exists to fill a need.


Personally, I have no problem with the HELP program in THERORY. What I do have a problem with is that Stingray is not a participant.

So how is that any different than you suing a venue for vicarious infringement when they hire a kj who is using stolen music?

It really is a shame that soundchoice sold the majority of their catalog. But I guess hindsight is always 20/20.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:51 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
FORKED TONGUE-O-METER IS PEGGED... AGAIN...
JimHarrington wrote:
The right to reproduce works is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. Likewise, the right to prepare derivative works is another of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.
And I notice that in your gem contract, you tell your licensees that they can "transfer the content to non-original media" (a.k.a. "make a copy") and you know that when they do this it is "blatant copyright infringement" but you want to cover your own a$$ by including that licensees must contractually indemnify PEP in the event of "infringement" or they don't get a license.

And that's just one reason that makes your ridiculously one-sided contracts so "scary."

You whine and complain repeatedly that "90% KJ's are pirates and thieves" and yet, you created a "help license" that not only condones theft, but specifically licenses copyright infringement against publishers/owners. Your company is not just a "piracy supporter" but on a grand scale, your company is a "piracy enabler" as long as you can squeeze some bucks out of it, it's all good right?

But the minute your precious trademark gets scrubbed off
like unnecessary graffiti, you're back to whining about "copyright" infringement? Seriously? You don't seem to care too much about copyright infringement against a publisher/owner when it's done by a "help licensee" do you?

Didn't think so.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:02 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
8) Not to mention if the license holder gets sued by plaintiffs other than PEP, the contract leaves the license holder twisting in the wind legally by their lonesome.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:13 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
JimHarrington wrote:

There are 30,000 or more operators in the US, and 90-95% of them are pirates to some degree. There is a lot of turnover. We can't possibly sue them all.



8) Is that all Jim? For the longest time according to your own estimates wasn't the figure more like over 50,000? What happened to 20,000 hosts, they just disappear or maybe you are going to say your efforts ran them off? Even at over 50,000 that puts the ratio at one host for over 1,000 population. If it is over 50,000 it is going to take longer than 26 years for you to sue everyone, and the ones who don't use your product you can't touch at all. I just wonder how many of us will be here in 26 years. Oh by the way admitting you can't get everyone only encourages the pirates not discourage them. Then again the truth is so apparent to deny it would lose you what ever standing you still have.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:19 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:07 pm
Posts: 576
Been Liked: 108 times
c. staley wrote:
FORKED TONGUE-O-METER IS PEGGED... AGAIN...
JimHarrington wrote:
The right to reproduce works is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. Likewise, the right to prepare derivative works is another of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.
And I notice that in your gem contract, you tell your licensees that they can "transfer the content to non-original media" (a.k.a. "make a copy") and you know that when they do this it is "blatant copyright infringement" but you want to cover your own a$$ by including that licensees must contractually indemnify PEP in the event of "infringement" or they don't get a license.

And that's just one reason that makes your ridiculously one-sided contracts so "scary."

You whine and complain repeatedly that "90% KJ's are pirates and thieves" and yet, you created a "help license" that not only condones theft, but specifically licenses copyright infringement against publishers/owners. Your company is not just a "piracy supporter" but on a grand scale, your company is a "piracy enabler" as long as you can squeeze some bucks out of it, it's all good right?

But the minute your precious trademark gets scrubbed off
like unnecessary graffiti, you're back to whining about "copyright" infringement? Seriously? You don't seem to care too much about copyright infringement against a publisher/owner when it's done by a "help licensee" do you?

Didn't think so.


JIM JUST DOESN'T LIKE THE IDEA THAT HIS MEAL TICKET; THE HERALDED SOUND CHOICE LOGO can be so easily erased. It's funny how Sound Choice cheerleaders see a Sound Choice Title screen even when there isn't one. LOL Some even believe that Sound Choice and or PEP own "The Color Purple". They are so brainwashed by Jim's alternative facts that they refuse to see the truth. They even think that 5 parallel lines is something that belongs to Sound Choice and anyone else that uses 5 parallel lines is somehow infringing on Sound Choice's properties. You can't make this stuff up.


Last edited by Karaoke Croaker on Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:27 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:07 pm
Posts: 576
Been Liked: 108 times
I just checked out a few of my Sound Choice tracks on my Pioneer Twin Tray CD+G player. Sound Choice often uses blue, red, yellow, white, and sometimes, yes they even use purple. I also noticed that various other companies including Pocket Songs and Sunfly, to just name a couple, use those same colors. Maybe PEP will start filing lawsuits against those companies for using the Sound Choice colors. LOL Maybe they asked for Sound Choice's permission to use those colors? :P


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:48 am 
Offline
Super Extreme
Super Extreme
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 7666
Songs: 1
Location: Hollyweird, Ca.
Been Liked: 1080 times
I believe HARPO productions own "The Color Purple". :angel:


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:29 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 466
Been Liked: 124 times
JimHarrington wrote:
I understand your position. I understand the optics from your perspective, about how it's not fair for some people, for a small fee, to get access to a product that cost you thousands of dollars.


PEP (Then SC) put out CDs, a FINITE source. There was a print run of however many thousands of CDs they made. PEP/SC doesn't have "new" inventory (other then the GEM series). All the CDs that were ever printed by SC are now in the secondary market. That means every single HELP licence is a profit. The HELP licence extends those printings beyond whatever Sound Choice had made by pressing the CDs.

JimHarrington wrote:
I get that it's not fair.

Just like it was unfair that the desktop computer I took to college cost $2000, when kids today can get a much more powerful laptop for $200 or less.


I understand deprecation in the market place. However, you are the one who brought up re-sale value. Sure I can post my used CDs on eBay for $20, but that doesn't mean they will sell at that price. The only CDs made by Sound Choice that would have any value are the ones that have content that no other producer had made. And that's becoming a rare event as the product is at least 6+ years old.

Karaoke tracks have also gone down in price to $2.50 - $3.00 a download... I have said, Zoom's 2016 Pop Box is around $20 - $30 on eBay. Zoom's 2017 Pop CD is around $18 shipped from the UK. Think when/if PEP goes back into production they are going to have similar pricing?

I won't hold my breath on it.

JimHarrington wrote:
There are 30,000 or more operators in the US, and 90-95% of them are pirates to some degree. There is a lot of turnover. We can't possibly sue them all. We could file new lawsuits against 4 operators every business day for the next 26 years and only cover the people who are pirates today. So HELP is a compromise. Rather than waiting to be sued, operators can step out of piracy for a reasonable price. We have tried to set the pricing in a way that balances all of the competing interests--our reasonable profit, the needs of our participating publishers, existing licensees and disc owners, and operators who want to pay for their music.

I'm sorry that you're unhappy that this program exists. But it exists to fill a need.


It doesn't stop piracy: You say that there are some 27,000 pirates in operation. And you have sued lets say a thousand of them. Who would be afraid of a company that had sued less then 1% or the pirates out there? I don't know how many pirates decided to "opt in", but my guess is most of them only did so when a lawsuit/settlement was attached to it.

It's certainly not helping any of the legal KJs. Most of us still deal with the pirate down the way, we changed our business practices to deal with them, not your lawsuits, and DEFINITELY not with your HELP licences.

The need it fills is to simply keep PEP's doors open. Now I know PEP has to keep the lights on, pay the staff and the bills, and that's fine. But this could be achieved by making new product as well. There is no reason that you can't make new product and police your old line, and suing pirates out of existence rather then letting them continue "renting" your trademark. You'll still make money on the damages, and then there is one less pirate in the world.

Other karaoke companies focus their energy on new product in a timely fashion, not lawsuits or entertainment services. They put out a good product at a reasonable price. I am sure they face the same issues PEP does, probably more so since most of them have have a larger catalog then even SC did. If they are filing lawsuits, its not on the same scale as PEP does. Why do you figure that is?

I get it: you aren't a watchdog agency, you are a business. But stop fooling yourself into thinking that what your are doing with the HELP licence is noble or saving the industry. The HELP licence helps PEP keep its doors open by paying the bills until something other then a lawsuit comes out of your business.

I'm sorry that PEP is full of resentment over it's past, but it's time to change the business model: sue the pirates out of existence as best as you can, and drop the HELP licence as the crutch your business needs to survive, and get making new product.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 6:12 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
8) The bottom line is that PEP is not to stop piracy but rather to make the pirates pay for use of the SC product. Since the legal hosts bought their product many years ago, SC is not interested in helping their loyal customers. They have already made what ever money they are going to make of them. The only potential market for them is the pirates letting them either license GEM or selling them the HELP license. They are not out here to help established hosts , since with SCE they will be trying to take market share away from all hosts and small multi riggers.


Last edited by The Lone Ranger on Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:16 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:35 am
Posts: 752
Images: 1
Been Liked: 73 times
JimHarrington wrote:
Karaoke Croaker wrote:
Weird Al has made a fortune from making derivative works. I don't recall him ever getting in trouble for it.


Actually, Weird Al (rather famously) gets a license for every parody song he records. If the songwriter refuses, he doesn't make it. Prince and Eminem are the only two to refuse--and note that he has never parodied any of their songs.


NOT ACCURATE:

"Although technically Weird Al does not need to seek permission from the original artist before creating his parody version of their song, he prides himself on always having obtained permission in advance. As Mental Floss noted, under the “fair use” provision of U.S. copyright law, Weird Al not need permission to create parody versions of existing songs, as long as royalties are paid."


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:35 am
Posts: 752
Images: 1
Been Liked: 73 times
doowhatchulike wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
Karaoke Croaker wrote:
Weird Al has made a fortune from making derivative works. I don't recall him ever getting in trouble for it.


Actually, Weird Al (rather famously) gets a license for every parody song he records. If the songwriter refuses, he doesn't make it. Prince and Eminem are the only two to refuse--and note that he has never parodied any of their songs.


NOT ACCURATE:

"Although technically Weird Al does not need to seek permission from the original artist before creating his parody version of their song, he prides himself on always having obtained permission in advance. As Mental Floss noted, under the “fair use” provision of U.S. copyright law, Weird Al not need permission to create parody versions of existing songs, as long as royalties are paid."


Here is another example:

"Even James Blunt’s label, Atlantic Records, rejected Weird Al’s request to create a parody of James months song “Beautiful,” which he intended to call “You’re Pitiful.”

Mental Floss reported that James Blunt himself agreed to the parody, saying that it would be a “huge compliment,” but he was overridden by Atlantic Records.

As Today reported, although Weird Al didn’t elaborate as to why his request was refused, he noted that he was quick to back off from the idea.

“I ultimately had to back off [from making a parody of “Beautiful”].”
On the other hand, Weird Al still went on to create the parody song, but only released it as a free digital download, back in the days of MySpace."

https://youtu.be/CeAWESP7THs


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:40 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:35 am
Posts: 752
Images: 1
Been Liked: 73 times
AND...strike three:

"Although Eminem gave Weird Al permission to create “Couch Potato” as a parody of “Lose yourself,” he went on to deny Weird Al permission to create a video for the parody song, or even to release it as a single."

https://youtu.be/OTNqqQfDKu8


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:24 am 
Offline
Super Extreme Poster
Super Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22974
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2125 times
If I recall Coolio had issues with him as well?

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


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Toastedmuffin wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
I understand your position. I understand the optics from your perspective, about how it's not fair for some people, for a small fee, to get access to a product that cost you thousands of dollars.


PEP (Then SC) put out CDs, a FINITE source. There was a print run of however many thousands of CDs they made. PEP/SC doesn't have "new" inventory (other then the GEM series). All the CDs that were ever printed by SC are now in the secondary market. That means every single HELP licence is a profit. The HELP licence extends those printings beyond whatever Sound Choice had made by pressing the CDs.


What extended those pressings beyond what we made were the millions of acts of piracy that were committed by karaoke operators who use the product. If they had done the right thing and bought CDs at the rate the music is being used, then we never would have stopped making new music. The HELP license is a method of accounting for that.

Toastedmuffin wrote:
I understand deprecation in the market place. However, you are the one who brought up re-sale value. Sure I can post my used CDs on eBay for $20, but that doesn't mean they will sell at that price. The only CDs made by Sound Choice that would have any value are the ones that have content that no other producer had made. And that's becoming a rare event as the product is at least 6+ years old.


Our product sells robustly at those prices on eBay. Moreover, our product has value beyond what was made only by us, because the quality is much higher than the competition, as a whole.

Toastedmuffin wrote:
Karaoke tracks have also gone down in price to $2.50 - $3.00 a download... I have said, Zoom's 2016 Pop Box is around $20 - $30 on eBay. Zoom's 2017 Pop CD is around $18 shipped from the UK. Think when/if PEP goes back into production they are going to have similar pricing?

I won't hold my breath on it.


We're in final discussions about pricing right now. We expect the new product to be available as single-song downloads for around that price ($3), but with a significant discount for the whole album.

Toastedmuffin wrote:
It doesn't stop piracy: You say that there are some 27,000 pirates in operation. And you have sued lets say a thousand of them. Who would be afraid of a company that had sued less then 1% or the pirates out there? I don't know how many pirates decided to "opt in", but my guess is most of them only did so when a lawsuit/settlement was attached to it.


At last check, I believe about 50% of our licensees took licenses after being sued. I expect that number to grow higher as time goes on because the pool of people who are willing to do the right thing without being forced is relatively small and stable.

Toastedmuffin wrote:
It's certainly not helping any of the legal KJs. Most of us still deal with the pirate down the way, we changed our business practices to deal with them, not your lawsuits, and DEFINITELY not with your HELP licences.


You don't think that raising your competitors' cost of operation is helpful to your business? Please reconsider your position.

Toastedmuffin wrote:
The need it fills is to simply keep PEP's doors open. Now I know PEP has to keep the lights on, pay the staff and the bills, and that's fine. But this could be achieved by making new product as well.


Historical data shows otherwise.

Toastedmuffin wrote:
There is no reason that you can't make new product and police your old line, and suing pirates out of existence rather then letting them continue "renting" your trademark. You'll still make money on the damages, and then there is one less pirate in the world.


I think that perhaps you don't understand what exactly is required to "sue pirates out of existence." It is incredibly costly in terms of time and money to push a lawsuit through to trial. More than 95% of all federal civil cases that get past Rule 12--not just ours, but all civil cases--are resolved with a settlement, because there simply isn't enough capacity to try that many cases. We can only effectively try a few cases a year--we just don't have the personnel to do otherwise. Moreover, even if we do go to trial and win, there is no guarantee that we'll be able to collect. A voluntary settlement removes a huge obstacle to payment. It's very difficult to collect judgments because of the laws that prevent judgment debtors from seizing certain assets and limiting the wages that can be garnisheed. And there is also no guarantee that the judge will give us an injunction--it's not automatic. And I haven't even touched on appeals, which can take years to be decided.

What you are talking about is not practical. Even if we were the best-funded company on earth, we would not be able to do what you're talking about.

Toastedmuffin wrote:
Other karaoke companies focus their energy on new product in a timely fashion, not lawsuits or entertainment services. They put out a good product at a reasonable price. I am sure they face the same issues PEP does, probably more so since most of them have have a larger catalog then even SC did. If they are filing lawsuits, its not on the same scale as PEP does. Why do you figure that is?


I don't know if you've noticed, but the number of karaoke producers has been chopped down considerably in recent years.

Toastedmuffin wrote:
I get it: you aren't a watchdog agency, you are a business. But stop fooling yourself into thinking that what your are doing with the HELP licence is noble or saving the industry. The HELP licence helps PEP keep its doors open by paying the bills until something other then a lawsuit comes out of your business.


You seem to be confused. I have never made that claim.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:22 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5105
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1279 times
JimHarrington wrote:
Toastedmuffin wrote:
Karaoke tracks have also gone down in price to $2.50 - $3.00 a download... I have said, Zoom's 2016 Pop Box is around $20 - $30 on eBay. Zoom's 2017 Pop CD is around $18 shipped from the UK. Think when/if PEP goes back into production they are going to have similar pricing?

I won't hold my breath on it.


We're in final discussions about pricing right now. We expect the new product to be available as single-song downloads for around that price ($3), but with a significant discount for the whole album.

havent you have signed contracts on your desk from multiple publishers for the last several years? what makes this time any different from the other broken promises?

JimHarrington wrote:
Toastedmuffin wrote:
It's certainly not helping any of the legal KJs. Most of us still deal with the pirate down the way, we changed our business practices to deal with them, not your lawsuits, and DEFINITELY not with your HELP licences.


You don't think that raising your competitors' cost of operation is helpful to your business? Please reconsider your position.

you think the undercutters are paying the HELP licenses? no, they charge the same or even more than the legit host because they can tout their massive 200k library along with all the other features we legit hosts can offer.

JimHarrington wrote:
Toastedmuffin wrote:
The need it fills is to simply keep PEP's doors open. Now I know PEP has to keep the lights on, pay the staff and the bills, and that's fine. But this could be achieved by making new product as well.


Historical data shows otherwise.

Michael Yelvington, how bad are things for KSF right now....ready to go out of business form piracy yet?


JimHarrington wrote:
Toastedmuffin wrote:
Other karaoke companies focus their energy on new product in a timely fashion, not lawsuits or entertainment services. They put out a good product at a reasonable price. I am sure they face the same issues PEP does, probably more so since most of them have have a larger catalog then even SC did. If they are filing lawsuits, its not on the same scale as PEP does. Why do you figure that is?


I don't know if you've noticed, but the number of karaoke producers has been chopped down considerably in recent years.

Sweet Georgia Brown - not paying licensing fees
Music Maestro - not paying licensing fees
Top Tunes - not paying licensing fees
Top Hits Monthly - not paying licensing fees / infringing on PHM
Pop Hits monthly - not paying licensing fees
Chartbuster - not paying licensing fees
Zoom - still going, just not in the U.S. but they are working on that...legally
Sunfly - still going and in the U.S. even paying extra licensing to do it...legally
Karaoke Version - still going and paying proper licensing fees
Party Tyme - still going and paying proper licensing fees

notice a trend?....

JimHarrington wrote:
Toastedmuffin wrote:
I get it: you aren't a watchdog agency, you are a business. But stop fooling yourself into thinking that what your are doing with the HELP licence is noble or saving the industry. The HELP licence helps PEP keep its doors open by paying the bills until something other then a lawsuit comes out of your business.


You seem to be confused. I have never made that claim.

finally we agree, there has never been a claim of wanting to help the industry or hosts since you have been in the mix.

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


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:39 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
JimHarrington wrote:

I think that perhaps you don't understand what exactly is required to "sue pirates out of existence." It is incredibly costly in terms of time and money to push a lawsuit through to trial. More than 95% of all federal civil cases that get past Rule 12--not just ours, but all civil cases--are resolved with a settlement, because there simply isn't enough capacity to try that many cases. We can only effectively try a few cases a year--we just don't have the personnel to do otherwise. Moreover, even if we do go to trial and win, there is no guarantee that we'll be able to collect. A voluntary settlement removes a huge obstacle to payment. It's very difficult to collect judgments because of the laws that prevent judgment debtors from seizing certain assets and limiting the wages that can be garnisheed. And there is also no guarantee that the judge will give us an injunction--it's not automatic. And I haven't even touched on appeals, which can take years to be decided.



8) And that is exactly why this legal farce of yours Jim has really little chance of even making a dent in the problem. All of these legal antics of yours is just to make hosts feel that you are out there doing something. The reality is you have had to take the pressure off illegal hosts and go after the venues they work for. If you manage to get some settlements on the cheap so much the better. As far as going back to actual production to earn revenue, I think we both know that is never going to happen. A host that voluntarily settles with you ought to have their head checked for loose screws.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:23 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:07 pm
Posts: 576
Been Liked: 108 times
doowhatchulike wrote:
doowhatchulike wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
Karaoke Croaker wrote:
Weird Al has made a fortune from making derivative works. I don't recall him ever getting in trouble for it.


Actually, Weird Al (rather famously) gets a license for every parody song he records. If the songwriter refuses, he doesn't make it. Prince and Eminem are the only two to refuse--and note that he has never parodied any of their songs.


NOT ACCURATE:

"Although technically Weird Al does not need to seek permission from the original artist before creating his parody version of their song, he prides himself on always having obtained permission in advance. As Mental Floss noted, under the “fair use” provision of U.S. copyright law, Weird Al not need permission to create parody versions of existing songs, as long as royalties are paid."


Here is another example:

"Even James Blunt’s label, Atlantic Records, rejected Weird Al’s request to create a parody of James months song “Beautiful,” which he intended to call “You’re Pitiful.”

Mental Floss reported that James Blunt himself agreed to the parody, saying that it would be a “huge compliment,” but he was overridden by Atlantic Records.

As Today reported, although Weird Al didn’t elaborate as to why his request was refused, he noted that he was quick to back off from the idea.

“I ultimately had to back off [from making a parody of “Beautiful”].”
On the other hand, Weird Al still went on to create the parody song, but only released it as a free digital download, back in the days of MySpace."

https://youtu.be/CeAWESP7THs


why is this link appropriate and the links that I posted were not? There are various karaoke videos on youtube of the Weird Al song "YOU'RE PITIFUL" I found one with the vocals and one without the vocals with a simple search on youtube. I would have put links to them here but if I would have put a link to them; I probably would have been reprimanded for doing so ; so you'll have to do your own search to find them. I guess the above link wasn't removed because Sound Choice never made a karaoke version of "YOU'RE PITIFUL". I wouldn't be surprised though to find out that the karaoke versions that are on you tube were made using a karaoke track for "YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL". The SOFA_KING version has it's own sense of humor to it. If you say SOFA KING really fast; you'll get the joke.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:26 am 
Offline
Super Extreme Poster
Super Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22974
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2125 times
The main diff??? Because it's not pointed to illegal karaoke tracks from YouTube! Those I will remove if I see them. The rest, i'll let the other mods take care of - I personally do not care about those links - unless it's something offensive.

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


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 11:53 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:07 pm
Posts: 576
Been Liked: 108 times
Lonman wrote:
The main diff??? Because it's not pointed to illegal karaoke tracks from YouTube! Those I will remove if I see them. The rest, i'll let the other mods take care of - I personally do not care about those links - unless it's something offensive.


WHAT EXACTLY MAKES THE TRACKS THAT I LINKED TO ILLEGAL? BECAUSE JIM HARRINGTON SAYS SO? According to Jim; everything on youtube is piracy of one sort or another. According to some of the other posters here; YOUTUBE pays the rights holders for having their content on their website so how is linking to a karaoke track illegal if YOUTUBE pays the Beatles Rights holders for displaying the content? Would it have been deleted if it had clearly been a Music Maestro track?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 267 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 137 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

cron
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