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


premium-member

Offsite Links


It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 6:28 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 267 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:43 am 
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
JimHarrington wrote:
The reason why we have not made our "owned" catalog available for purchase is because doing so would require new licensing (particularly royalty advances). This material did not sell well to begin with, so it is not worth paying the royalty advances necessary to release it at this point. It may be worth it in the future.
Annnnd... I was right. They "can't sell it" legally even to their own licensees. And karaoke songs are not like fine wine: they don't increase in value over time. If they record it and hold on to it, it becomes irrelevant and worthless in the market.

REGARDING THE GEM SERIES:

JimHarrington wrote:
We could, however, decide to sell them outright, and we could do so without any additional licensing (in other words, they were fully and properly licensed at the time of production).
Which is an outright untruth. If they were in fact "fully licensed" then PEP wouldn't have gone through 2 years of a lawsuit with EMI that ultimately resulted in them signing a settlement so large, it is to be paid over a 5 year period. If it was "fully licensed" then the lawsuit would have been over in a month with a summary judgement. So it simply was not "fully licensed" no matter how many times he repeats that malarkey.

JimHarrington wrote:
I think it's important to remember that--legally and morally--what stands between the piracy and legitimate use of "red logo" tracks, at least from the perspective of our rights in those tracks, is merely our permission. (That's always the case with intellectual property.) We're not selling insurance. We are selling our permission, not insurance.
And again, this is not true in a number of states and a couple of federal districts that have clearly declared that the playback of karaoke tracks off a computer (or other device like a CAVS machine) is not actionable or even trademark infringement. PEP sells "insurance against a lawsuit" and if they did not, they wouldn't need a "covenant not to SUE" as part of the agreement would they?

Of course it's lawsuit insurance even if you already purchased the discs and it's mighty expensive insurance.


Last edited by c. staley on Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:44 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

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

I don't care how PEP or anyone else here makes their money so long as they do so within the bounds of the law and don't disadvantage other businesses that operate within the law.

If you want to hold PEP to some moral standard just realize that your standard does not necessarily reflect the standards of anyone around you.

There are some who want to hold PEP to a moral standard they don't or can't adhere to themselves.


8) So what are your saying here Chris that no one holds the moral high ground? With that I would have to agree "For all have sinned and come short of the glory". When you are talking about the bounds of the law, it all depends on whose definition of the law you are coming up with. PEP says they have been injured, the 9th Federal District does not agree, who is right? You yourself have said that pirates have not damaged your business, you are doing fine. Chip says that SC has been paid for their tracks, so where are they injured? So if everyone is not injured and all have been paid, what are we doing here? The real problem is greed on all sides. Everyone has an interest that is currently in business, has in some way a dog in this fight. The bottom line is if your bottom line is good, then what is going on around you is just so much sound and fury signifying nothing.


Last edited by The Lone Ranger on Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:52 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
8) I have to agree with Chip, it is insurance aka protection that you are selling Jim. Very limited insurance since it only protects the purchaser from you coming after them, but then you don't have to come after them, they are already paying you off. If the payments ever stopped though I bet you would be right there with your legal baseball bat. Anything for a Buck.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:12 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
The Lone Ranger wrote:
8) I have to agree with Chip, it is insurance aka protection that you are selling Jim. Very limited insurance since it only protects the purchaser from you coming after them, but then you don't have to come after them, they are already paying you off. If the payments ever stopped though I bet you would be right there with your legal baseball bat. Anything for a Buck.


Since I'm not reading Mr. Staley's posts, I have no idea what you might be agreeing with, but it's a safe bet that he didn't know what he's talking about.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:25 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

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

Since I'm not reading Mr. Staley's posts, I have no idea what you might be agreeing with, but it's a safe bet that he didn't know what he's talking about.



8) It could be that you don't know what your talking about yourself, I agree more with what Chip posts than what you put up. So if everything that is put up on this particular forum is meaningless why does anyone waste their time here?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:48 am 
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
JimHarrington wrote:
Since I'm not reading Mr. Staley's posts, I have no idea what you might be agreeing with,...
Of course you are reading them.... you're just not replying to them. So, I guess there is no misinformation for you to correct...

JimHarrington wrote:
but it's a safe bet that he didn't know what he's talking about.
And I'll bet that the UCC lien filing in North Carolina against all PEP's assets until the year 2020 by EMI is imaginary too... because the gems were "fully licensed" right?

This is the stuff that exactly contradicts what Harrington repeatedly tries to pawn off as some kind of truth...


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:53 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
JimHarrington wrote:

Since I'm not reading Mr. Staley's posts, I have no idea what you might be agreeing with, but it's a safe bet that he didn't know what he's talking about.

You aren't reading Chip's posts?? Why is that?? Is it because he punches holes in every one of your arguments?? You way of doing things is falling apart. Get back to making music, make some money the RIGHT way, and have a nice day.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:05 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
Chip is right at least on some of it.
it can easily be verified with a quick web search to see the actual documents scanned in.

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


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:17 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6085
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1663 times
Paradigm Karaoke wrote:
Chip is right at least on some of it.
it can easily be verified with a quick web search to see the actual documents scanned in.


Chip also lied -

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31941&p=402782&hilit=peters+watermark#p402782

_________________
-Chris


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:10 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 466
Been Liked: 124 times
chrisavis wrote:
I don't care how PEP or anyone else here makes their money so long as they do so within the bounds of the law and don't disadvantage other businesses that operate within the law.

If you want to hold PEP to some moral standard just realize that your standard does not necessarily reflect the standards of anyone around you.

There are some who want to hold PEP to a moral standard they don't or can't adhere to themselves.


Sadly, some of us do car how PEP makes it's money. It's not to say we don't mind people who have stolen Sound Choice property get what they deserve (I've paid for my media, why shouldn't others), but PEP only has one goal: to profit by using lawsuits.

As posted in this very topic:

JimHarrington wrote:
The reason why we have not made our "owned" catalog available for purchase is because doing so would require new licensing (particularly royalty advances). This material did not sell well to begin with, so it is not worth paying the royalty advances necessary to release it at this point. It may be worth it in the future.


So what I am reading here is that PEP has no DESIRE to produce product at this point. The "It may be worth it in the future." part of that paragraph doesn't give a timetable, so until something solid is actually released, this is an empty promise. We saw ADVANCED come and go, PRIME seems to be stuck in neutral, and even SCE looks to be not quite out of concept mode.

I get it, Sound Choice / PEP got burnt at both ends. They got merchandise stolen from them by users, and also got sued by EMI. And what they have left of their SC product, they are trying to tightly control to ensure that people can work there and get paid.

But right now, seems there are more people handling the outcome of lawsuits and registrations, and a lot less studio musicians on the payroll.

The acquisition of the Chart Buster trademark only shows that this practice will continue. While today they are just registering owners, the lawsuits WILL come... in time.

So when "The #1 karaoke Brand" doesn't make any product, and buys a label's trademark (not the actual catalog) to "protect" it from falling into freeware. What do you call them?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:36 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
8) Intellectual trolls, who file frivolous lawsuits for personal gain comes to mind.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:04 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Smoothedge69 wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:

Since I'm not reading Mr. Staley's posts, I have no idea what you might be agreeing with, but it's a safe bet that he didn't know what he's talking about.

You aren't reading Chip's posts?? Why is that??


Because it's a waste of time.

He contributes very little of value to the conversation here. He turns virtually every thread into an anti-SC bash. If you engage him and refute his arguments, he simply moves the goalposts.

He's obsessed with us, and he's demonstrated that he is unconstrained by facts--whatever he imagines, he presents as the truth.

The only way to win an argument with someone like that is not to participate.

Unfortunately, that means he will feel empowered to make up more stuff, at least for a while. He'll eventually tire of asymmetrical warfare and find some other way to fill the empty hours when he's not hosting karaoke shows. So be it.

Since the admins on this board have shown that they're not going to police him, my only choice is to enforce my own ban.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:06 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Paradigm Karaoke wrote:
Chip is right at least on some of it.
it can easily be verified with a quick web search to see the actual documents scanned in.


The risk you run with that is that he usually doesn't know enough about what he's posting to understand the context. To quote Alexander Pope, "A little learning is a dangerous thing." Mr. Staley is the king of "shallow thoughts (that) intoxicate the brain."


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:41 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Toastedmuffin wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
The reason why we have not made our "owned" catalog available for purchase is because doing so would require new licensing (particularly royalty advances). This material did not sell well to begin with, so it is not worth paying the royalty advances necessary to release it at this point. It may be worth it in the future.


So what I am reading here is that PEP has no DESIRE to produce product at this point. The "It may be worth it in the future." part of that paragraph doesn't give a timetable, so until something solid is actually released, this is an empty promise. We saw ADVANCED come and go, PRIME seems to be stuck in neutral, and even SCE looks to be not quite out of concept mode.


I think you are overreading my statement there. I was specifically referring to the catalog of music that was made after the primary catalog was sold. We still own those copyrights. However, we're not selling those tracks right now. To do so would require us to enter into new license agreements with the publishers and pay royalty advances. They didn't sell well when they were new (although they are certainly popular in the pirate world). So there is very little motivation to pay royalty advances that we will never recoup on those products.

The same is not true for "new new" music, however. We are working hard to get licensing for new releases. We have licensing in hand from one major group. Right now, we're trying to decide whether to make music that's from that major's catalog only (publishing is often split between multiple publishers, which rules out a lot of material for the time being) or wait until we get other licenses. There is some disagreement on the team as to which direction to go in.

As far as PRIME goes, we still have that program, but we are in the process of integrating its features more tightly with SCE. And SCE will be making two major announcements at the Nightclub & Bar Trade Show in Las Vegas on March 28. One of those announcements is directed at SCE's primary market, bars and restaurants, and it involves a major value-add for venues that hire SCE to run their entertainment. The other is directed at mobile entertainment operators and involves a brand-new software suite that we've just acquired exclusive distribution rights to.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:57 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
8) Go Ahead Jim take all the time you want making up your mind. That is what you been doing anyway.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:21 am 
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:
Toastedmuffin wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
.


quote]

The same is not true for "new new" music, however. We are working hard to get licensing for new releases. We have licensing in hand from one major group. Right now, we're trying to decide whether to make music that's from that major's catalog only (publishing is often split between multiple publishers, which rules out a lot of material for the time being) or wait until we get other licenses. There is some disagreement on the team as to which direction to go in.

As far as PRIME goes, we still have that program, but we are in the process of integrating its features more tightly with SCE. And SCE will be making two major announcements at the Nightclub & Bar Trade Show in Las Vegas on March 28. One of those announcements is directed at SCE's primary market, bars and restaurants, and it involves a major value-add for venues that hire SCE to run their entertainment. The other is directed at mobile entertainment operators and involves a brand-new software suite that we've just acquired exclusive distribution rights to.


Hold the phone there Jim. Maybe I don't understand fully, but I thought permission was only needed from one group in order to produce a karaoke song. Like in the way if two writers wrote a song, one could say no but if the other one said yes then it was ok.

Am I missing something?

As for the rest of it, I am not completely sure. I find it extremely difficult to believe, that if you believed in your legal arguments that you couldn't find a single laywer who was willing to take your cases in Arizona over the course of five years.

However, even if that were true, you will have to admit that the majority of leads that people have submitted FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY have been largely been 'ignored' or not followed up on. There may be perfectly valid reasons for this, I mean the company only has so many resources to do what they can, but it is extremely frustrating.

As for myself, I have given up trying to educate others. If someone asks me about it, I will tell them why I won't make copies of my music, and why I won't accept music from other KJs but I don't go out of my way anymore. No one I talk to cares about any of it.

It breaks my heart what is happening to this industry, and I will always do what I consider to be the right thing *pay for the music that I use* but as far as the war is concerned, I think it is pretty much over, and the bad guys have won.

just my two cents, your milage may vary

-James


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:33 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:11 am
Posts: 846
Location: Ocean County, Jersey Shore
Been Liked: 197 times
jclaydon wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
Toastedmuffin wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
.


quote]

The same is not true for "new new" music, however. We are working hard to get licensing for new releases. We have licensing in hand from one major group. Right now, we're trying to decide whether to make music that's from that major's catalog only (publishing is often split between multiple publishers, which rules out a lot of material for the time being) or wait until we get other licenses. There is some disagreement on the team as to which direction to go in.

As far as PRIME goes, we still have that program, but we are in the process of integrating its features more tightly with SCE. And SCE will be making two major announcements at the Nightclub & Bar Trade Show in Las Vegas on March 28. One of those announcements is directed at SCE's primary market, bars and restaurants, and it involves a major value-add for venues that hire SCE to run their entertainment. The other is directed at mobile entertainment operators and involves a brand-new software suite that we've just acquired exclusive distribution rights to.


Hold the phone there Jim. Maybe I don't understand fully, but I thought permission was only needed from one group in order to produce a karaoke song. Like in the way if two writers wrote a song, one could say no but if the other one said yes then it was ok.

Am I missing something?

As for the rest of it, I am not completely sure. I find it extremely difficult to believe, that if you believed in your legal arguments that you couldn't find a single laywer who was willing to take your cases in Arizona over the course of five years.

However, even if that were true, you will have to admit that the majority of leads that people have submitted FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY have been largely been 'ignored' or not followed up on. There may be perfectly valid reasons for this, I mean the company only has so many resources to do what they can, but it is extremely frustrating.

As for myself, I have given up trying to educate others. If someone asks me about it, I will tell them why I won't make copies of my music, and why I won't accept music from other KJs but I don't go out of my way anymore. No one I talk to cares about any of it.

It breaks my heart what is happening to this industry, and I will always do what I consider to be the right thing *pay for the music that I use* but as far as the war is concerned, I think it is pretty much over, and the bad guys have won.

just my two cents, your milage may vary

-James


I'd imagine they don't follow up on every lead because they simply don't have the resources or manpower to do it. If it takes $400 (I believe that's what Jim said) to file a lawsuit every single time, 10 suits is $4000 with absolutely no guarantee of getting a return on their investment. 100 suits, $40,000. And aren't there only so many GEM leases available? If so, if they run out of GEM leases, there's no reason to continue to sue, unless they think they can squeeze people for HELP licenses. If they run out of GEMs, I'm sure the defendants would simply agree to stop 'infringing' with maybe some nominal fine, much less than what they can squeeze from a GEM. Otherwise, there's no other revenue to be sought from suits.

_________________
DJ Don


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
jclaydon wrote:
Hold the phone there Jim. Maybe I don't understand fully, but I thought permission was only needed from one group in order to produce a karaoke song. Like in the way if two writers wrote a song, one could say no but if the other one said yes then it was ok.


Legally, that's 100% correct as far as it goes.

The problem is that every publisher requires the consent of all co-publishers as a condition of licensing. The reason for that is mostly practical. If there are co-authors of a work, unless they have an express agreement to the contrary, one co-author can license the entire work. However, that co-author is required to account to the others for the royalty and share the royalty according to their shares of ownership. That creates an administrative burden (and a potential source of liability) that publishers don't really want to take on. They barely like the administrative burden of accounting for the royalties they are entitled to.

jclaydon wrote:
As for the rest of it, I am not completely sure. I find it extremely difficult to believe, that if you believed in your legal arguments that you couldn't find a single laywer who was willing to take your cases in Arizona over the course of five years.


We've had multiple lawyers in Arizona over the years. In fact, we have one in Arizona right now. Last summer, we had hired an investigator and an attorney, but the investigator didn't work out, so we couldn't file new cases. At this point, we have a new investigator and an attorney, but the Wired for Sound opinion has required us to change our approach, which is requiring some retraining.

jclaydon wrote:
However, even if that were true, you will have to admit that the majority of leads that people have submitted FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY have been largely been 'ignored' or not followed up on. There may be perfectly valid reasons for this, I mean the company only has so many resources to do what they can, but it is extremely frustrating.


Leads are great, but they only work out if we have the resources to follow through to suit in an area. That requires an investigative team, an attorney, and enough targets in an area to justify sending them in. Any slight problem with any of that can derail the process.

I say all of this not as an excuse, but just an explanation. I would love to be able to follow up on every lead. We're not intentionally ignoring anyone. But we're a small company with few resources, and those resources are increasingly consumed by bad-faith arguments egged on by people with a pro-piracy agenda. I'm dealing right now with a set of related defendants who are absolutely, 100% guilty of piracy. They know it. Their attorney knows it. They aren't really disputing it. But they think they can beat the system somehow, and even if they don't, they believe they are doing right by forcing us to waste resources on them.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:31 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
JimHarrington wrote:
The problem is that every publisher requires the consent of all co-publishers as a condition of licensing. The reason for that is mostly practical. If there are co-authors of a work, unless they have an express agreement to the contrary, one co-author can license the entire work. However, that co-author is required to account to the others for the royalty and share the royalty according to their shares of ownership. That creates an administrative burden (and a potential source of liability) that publishers don't really want to take on. They barely like the administrative burden of accounting for the royalties they are entitled to.
This is YOUR problem, not the KJ's problem. with such a long record in the karaoke business stretching back several decades, one would expect that those decades of experience, it would be a relatively easy matter to get something licensed. KSF – even though they are relatively new – don't seem to be having the same problems that you have when it comes to licensing.
JimHarrington wrote:
We've had multiple lawyers in Arizona over the years. In fact, we have one in Arizona right now. Last summer, we had hired an investigator and an attorney, but the investigator didn't work out, so we couldn't file new cases. At this point, we have a new investigator and an attorney, but the Wired for Sound opinion has required us to change our approach, which is requiring some retraining.
Here we go again..... Crank up the excuse machine and maybe some KJ's will swallow that crap for another year.... because you had plenty of years before the wired-for-sound case where you did exactly squat....
JimHarrington wrote:
Leads are great, but they only work out if we have the resources to follow through to suit in an area. That requires an investigative team, an attorney, and enough targets in an area to justify sending them in. Any slight problem with any of that can derail the process.
Excuses, excuses, excuses.... and I for one, am not buying it. You have filed a number of recent cases against venues ONLY – that have been far apart – in different cities.
An example: In case 8:17-cv-00052 LOCAL MOTION OC, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, you are once again suing a venue and haven't even bothered to get the correct names – or any names – of the karaoke host that work there. What kind of "investigation" is that? You claim in your complaint that you will get them later on "through discovery." and of course, your big complaint here is – just as I thought – now attempting to claim that the sound choice logo which is embedded in the tracks, which were sold to the general public for years, is now somehow more than just the advertising logo.
Complaint wrote:
43. Because of the frequent, repeated display of the Sound Choice Marks across numerous instances of widely disparate songs, patrons who receive each of Local’s karaoke entertainment services are likely to view the display of the Sound Choice Marks as an indicator of the affiliation, connection, or association of Local with Phoenix, or of Phoenix's sponsorship or approval of the services and related commercial activities, rather than merely as indicating Phoenix as the creator of the underlying communicative content of any particular song being performed.

It would be interesting to understand how any one of your "controlled licensees" that also display your marks feel about you once again claiming that there is some sort of affiliation, connection, association, control or sponsorship with your firm. I'll bet there are a number of karaoke host that went through your audit, believing that all they were doing was getting permission to use a laptop to play back the tracks that they purchased and avoid being sued.

JimHarrington wrote:
I'm dealing right now with a set of related defendants who are absolutely, 100% guilty of piracy. They know it. Their attorney knows it. They aren't really disputing it. But they think they can beat the system somehow, and even if they don't, they believe they are doing right by forcing us to waste resources on them.
This is a typical tactic that you employ against karaoke hosts – run up their legal bills – it's amazing that it seems to be somehow offensive when the tables are turned on you.

It's all about integrity - something you have a great disdain for.

Here is the complaint if anyone wants to read it.... notice how PEP practically claims "ownership" on every KJ that signed expecting just just "permission."
http://dkusa.com/docs/PEPComplaint.pdf

Just remember that when you read this, it was written by the same lawyer who said this -- in this very forum -- on March 12, 2012 because when it comes to words, slicing, dicing, purposely confusing and blowing smoke is what they do:
JimHarrington wrote:
There is a difference between "You can play from original discs without fearing that you will be sued over it" and "There is no possibility that you will ever be sued if you play from original discs."


Last edited by c. staley on Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:46 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 466
Been Liked: 124 times
JimHarrington wrote:

The same is not true for "new new" music, however. We are working hard to get licensing for new releases. We have licensing in hand from one major group. Right now, we're trying to decide whether to make music that's from that major's catalog only (publishing is often split between multiple publishers, which rules out a lot of material for the time being) or wait until we get other licenses. There is some disagreement on the team as to which direction to go in.

As far as PRIME goes, we still have that program, but we are in the process of integrating its features more tightly with SCE. And SCE will be making two major announcements at the Nightclub & Bar Trade Show in Las Vegas on March 28. One of those announcements is directed at SCE's primary market, bars and restaurants, and it involves a major value-add for venues that hire SCE to run their entertainment. The other is directed at mobile entertainment operators and involves a brand-new software suite that we've just acquired exclusive distribution rights to.


Lots of companies out there are making new product, both in digital as well as on CDs. Even if you were to drop new product just as a CD to retain the current situation, I am sure you could have put product out by now. Bonus: I'd have shut my mouth and maybe pull out my wallet.

I'd also wager that you would have more interest in PRIME/SCE with the release of some tracks prior to... well... whatever it is your doing over there.

Finally, why the cloak and dagger on the websites? No mention of anything of the sort on PEP.rocks or the old Soundchoice.com website. On the later, not even a good splash page. You are about to set upon an LV trade show in 3 weeks, and NO ONE knows anything about it, other then what you just said here. Not a good plan.

And while PEP might want to hold the meat of it's announcements for the trade show, they could have had dropped some major hints and at least got people interested. We are dealing with a niche crowd scattered all over the county. Hard to get excited about things when all you see is news from 2015.

PEP really need some people in the PR department.


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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 119 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