KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - This forum will never be able to fix karaoke. 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 7:36 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:21 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
I began my original post by mentioning that I would probably regret doing so. Let it be noted that that prophecy has been fulfilled so this will more than likely be my last post on this thread. Nevertheless my intention was twofold. The first being that there were posts in this thread (and not just from you) that depicted all "manus" (with the possible exception of Party Tyme) as pirates who sell infringing products, and as a result not only attempted to rationalize their ad hominem justifications for being in possession of known pirated material, but it also provoked my own indignation by having been by default, accused of being a pirate "manu". Secondly, I did want to provide a different perspective from a karaoke label's point of view in the hopes that some may find that information helpful, and take that information into further consideration before forming an opinion that all "manus" are pirates. But as usual of course, and even dating back to the days of the Jolt forum it just turned into another pissing contest by people who are more interested in proving themselves to be right rather than considering the information from someone who has actually been there, simply because it doesn't agree with their narrative.

Chip, your entire reply from the first line to the last paragraph is one big moral indictment and I guess I was unable to drive the point across that you can't legislate morality. I don't know if it's an inability to comprehend the concept, being overwhelmed by your own ideology, or the most likelihood of it being a common case of cognitive dissonance. Whatever the reason, it's become obvious to me that there is no logical discussion to be found here. What I see as being a moral judgment by you, you view as "common sense". We definitely have a different understanding of what is defined as being common sense. To me, when I see a "consent" agreement between a major publisher and a karaoke label, I see something that took many hours, days or even weeks or possibly months to negotiate. Common sense would dictate to me at least that there is a huge dynamic involved in drafting a 2 million dollar agreement. This didn't happen in a vacuum where all of a sudden this document just appeared, and the consenting party signed the agreement.

Like I said earlier, I'm not about to carry water for Chartbusters, Sound Choice or any other producer/label for that matter. As far as having proper "sync" licenses, I don't know if they have 10 licenses, 10,000 licenses, or 0 licenses between them all. I'll tell you what I do know however, and that is that I'm long enough in the tooth to subscribe to the old adage of only "believe half of what I see and nothing of what I hear". Chip you really don't understand the licensing process like you claim too. At best you may have a pedestrian understanding but nothing more. While we're on the "common sense" wagon, it would seem to stand to reason that someone who's never negotiated a single karaoke "sync" license in his entire life could not suddenly become an instant expert on the process, and unless you are an expert on the subject you are in no position to pass judgment on those who are in that position. By all means you are entitled to your opinion, but you're really in no position to pass judgment.

If you really were an expert, you would understand how a producer/label could very easily have a license for a song and still be sued for infringement. To reiterate, I'm not suggesting this is the case for Chartbusters or Sound Choice, etc. but what I am saying by having been there is that there's no way of you knowing exactly what their licensing status was at that time, nor will you ever know. It's the same reason why I can't proclaim their innocence anymore than you should be proclaiming their guilt. In this country it's still innocent until proven guilty and if a court of law hasn't rendered judgment then they are still innocent until such time that they do.

All karaoke labels operate under a certain measure of vulnerability. It's the nature of the beast. There will always be infringements by even the most diligent of karaoke companies. It's really a question as to whether or not those infringements are "willful". Each and every song presents its own challenges. For example: Was I able to determine who all of the fractional owners of the work are? Was I able to get in touch with every owner of the work? What if one of the owners/publishers doesn't agree to the same royalty rate? Is there a "favorite nations" clause in some of the licenses but not in the others? Should I proceed with production once I have the first license? Even though the copyright code explicitly states that any owner of a musical composition can grant a license for that work, for all intents and purposes that law is meaningless because publishers don't abide by it (by the way Chip, where does that sit on your moral radar?). They force the label to get a license from each and every fractional owner of a work, and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it if they want to stay in business, or take on the expense of legally challenging it in a court of law, and believe me it is very easy to miss one. Miss 10 over the course of a year and your being threatened with a million and a half dollar lawsuit. Mind you, in this day and age you can have more than 10 owners and as many different publishers on one song alone! This is just one of many scenarios by which a producer/label can have a license and still be sued. You simply just don't have a clue as to what all of the variables are, or what actually goes on behind the scenes. At the end of the day, the decision to stay in this business under those conditions isn't a moral one, it's a business decision. Entering consent agreements such as the one you mention does not in and of itself prove guilt, it could just be a matter of survival. Again, I'm not saying this is the case as I'm not privy to what went on in the background, but here again, neither are you, and I know firsthand how these things can transpire to make you look like the bad guy.

I don't know all the particulars in the CB matter but I do know that your description of a "legal loophole" is not possible. CB could not renege on a debt then sell its assets to the "same people" with a different name. That would indeed be a fraudulent transfer of assets no matter whose name was on it so there's a lot more to this part of the story than you're either unaware of or simply not disclosing. Also there's no such thing as "stolen" I.P., you can't "steal" intellectual property.

Another instance in which you say you understand things but you actually don't is when you state that "we could go back and forth all day on that one". The point here was that different people have different moral standards. No one was portraying it as a "contest". It's when you try to impose your moral standard on others is when it becomes that slippery slope. For example, I find the thought of your comment but on a "more moral basis" there probably shouldn't be copyright at all if it benefits the general public to be particularly repulsive, but I'm not going to try to impose my views on you. I might try to persuade you to consider why that might not be such a good way to look at it, but I'm not going to stand in judgment of you for your beliefs.

To your point about CB "breaching" its agreement, it sure looks like that's the case but there were legal remedies available to the other party so I'm not so sure that there isn't more to this than what meets the eye. I do know this much, that Norbert was forced into a bankruptcy so there probably wasn't anything worth going after other than the sound recordings which they probably didn't think there was enough value for them to assume the legal expenses of obtaining them.

You ask if it's your "business" to police producers? Well actually it might be. The operative word here is karaoke "company". If you were simply a consumer then I might agree with your statement but technically as a business engaged in the act of commerce I believe you do have an obligation to ensure that the content that you purchase is legal. Copyright infringement is what is legally known as a "strict liability" which means that even if you don't know that you're violating copyright laws you are still liable. It does seem a bit unfair but that's exactly what happened to karaoke.com when it got sued for selling infringing products. Evidently they had an obligation to the impossible which was to verify that every song on every disc that they sold was legally licensed. That was the beginning of the end for karaoke.com. Does offering your services to a venue using unlicensed products qualify as a "contributory infringement"? I believe there's a good chance that it could. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to equate selling your services to a venue, to selling those very same products to a consumer.

And no, I'm not suggesting that you destroy your discs on moral grounds or any other grounds for that matter. To begin with I wasn't referring to legally licensed products in the conversation. What I was referring to were products that were "known" to be unlicenseable, and my charge to you was to destroy discs that you "know" are unlicensed by the label that produced them. The point here being that if you're going to take a moral stand, then in order to avoid the hypocrisy you should abide by your own moral standards instead of speaking out of both sides of your mouth by slamming these producers on one hand, but on the other hand gladly using those very same products in order to enrich yourself, then all of a sudden claim it's not your business. Really Chip?

So how is it that I have saddled my own moral horse? I made no such claims about them cheating, those are your words. I believe I used the word "set-up", a perfectly defensible infraction under the legal term of "entrapment". No "blurry lines" or moral outcry here. It's simply an argument which would have been used in my defense had it gone to trial, but seeing that you seem to look at everything through your own moral prism, it comes as no surprise that you would see it that way. Sorry ... no cigar here.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:21 pm 
Offline
Super Plus Poster
Super Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:21 pm
Posts: 1609
Location: Earth
Been Liked: 307 times
Bastiat wrote:
The two best ways to reverse the ABKCO v Stellar case is either by revisiting this case in another jurisdiction or through legislation. With either method a good deal of support from the karaoke community will go a long way in helping achieve a favorable outcome.


I appreciate your insights, and thank you for returning to this forum to share them with us.
What form of support from the karaoke community do you think would be most helpful in reversing this mistake from the court?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:33 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
Bastiat wrote:
I began my original post by mentioning that I would probably regret doing so. Let it be noted that that prophecy has been fulfilled so this will more than likely be my last post on this thread. Nevertheless my intention was twofold. The first being that there were posts in this thread (and not just from you) that depicted all "manus" (with the possible exception of Party Tyme) as pirates who sell infringing products, and as a result not only attempted to rationalize their ad hominem justifications for being in possession of known pirated material, but it also provoked my own indignation by having been by default, accused of being a pirate "manu". Secondly, I did want to provide a different perspective from a karaoke label's point of view in the hopes that some may find that information helpful, and take that information into further consideration before forming an opinion that all "manus" are pirates. But as usual of course, and even dating back to the days of the Jolt forum it just turned into another pissing contest by people who are more interested in proving themselves to be right rather than considering the information from someone who has actually been there, simply because it doesn't agree with their narrative.

I don't believe that there's been a single post that points to or accuses you or your firm as any kind of "pirate manufacturer." However, I can certainly point you to a number of post that proclaim "95% of all KJ's are pirates" written by producers. I can certainly appreciate your sensitivity when it feels as though you have been by default, included in a group in which you do not belong. Both you and I are fully aware that there are pirates on both sides of this karaoke business – producer side and host side. That doesn't necessarily automatically include you, or me as any kind of pirate. As a matter of fact, even if you read through this entire forum you'll find that pop hits monthly has never been a talking point with anyone when it comes to the discussion of "pirate manufacturers." Simply being on the producer side of this business does not automatically constitute that you're involved in any kind of piracy, I apologize if you ever think that I was ever accusing you of any such activity.

Bastiat wrote:
Chip, your entire reply from the first line to the last paragraph is one big moral indictment and I guess I was unable to drive the point across that you can't legislate morality. I don't know if it's an inability to comprehend the concept, being overwhelmed by your own ideology, or the most likelihood of it being a common case of cognitive dissonance. Whatever the reason, it's become obvious to me that there is no logical discussion to be found here. What I see as being a moral judgment by you, you view as "common sense". We definitely have a different understanding of what is defined as being common sense. To me, when I see a "consent" agreement between a major publisher and a karaoke label, I see something that took many hours, days or even weeks or possibly months to negotiate. Common sense would dictate to me at least that there is a huge dynamic involved in drafting a 2 million dollar agreement. This didn't happen in a vacuum where all of a sudden this document just appeared, and the consenting party signed the agreement.

I don't understand where you see this as any kind of moral indictment. But I'm not sure if you understand the situation behind this $2 million "agreement" or if you are ignoring the activities that brought this agreement in existence in the first place. This was not a standard business deal between a producer and the publisher as most would think of in the normal course of business. That's simply a contractual obligation for both entities to understand the limitations in order for them to both make money. That was not the case in this situation. This consent agreement went through the court system after a lawsuit for infringement. Not an accidental infringement and not a partial infringement. The publisher charged that there were no licenses – at all. Whether or not you – or I – believe that the charge of infringement was warranted or not, is inconsequential. The point was (and the morality began) when Chartbuster agreed to make payments and then breached that agreement by not making a single payment. That was "the cheat." I'm certainly not carrying the flag for the publishing company at any time..

Bastiat wrote:
Like I said earlier, I'm not about to carry water for Chartbusters, Sound Choice or any other producer/label for that matter. As far as having proper "sync" licenses, I don't know if they have 10 licenses, 10,000 licenses, or 0 licenses between them all. I'll tell you what I do know however, and that is that I'm long enough in the tooth to subscribe to the old adage of only "believe half of what I see and nothing of what I hear". Chip you really don't understand the licensing process like you claim too. At best you may have a pedestrian understanding but nothing more. While we're on the "common sense" wagon, it would seem to stand to reason that someone who's never negotiated a single karaoke "sync" license in his entire life could not suddenly become an instant expert on the process, and unless you are an expert on the subject you are in no position to pass judgment on those who are in that position. By all means you are entitled to your opinion, but you're really in no position to pass judgment.

While I'm standing on apparently the wrong side of your indictment bench, keep in mind that all these years that I have been posting these "judgments" I have never relied on "what I hear." And I've always done research and homework regarding the other "half of what I see," in order to keep from jumping to conclusions without enough information. If you read through these forums long enough, you'll find that I've always been one to provide some type of documentation or other proof (when allowed) to substantiate any claims I make here. Something that over the years, other producers such as soundchoice and chartbusters have outright refused to provide with the claims that they've made. I've never claimed to be an expert in any kind of music licensing, but I'm also not as clueless as you would make me out to be . As a matter of fact, even Harrington has accused me of instigating the infringement lawsuit against sound choice from EMI . Something like that wouldn't happen without at least some knowledge of the ins and outs of licensing – whether or not I am actively seeking licenses from any publisher for any reason . So I don't believe you can use that broad brush simply to say "because you don't do it day in and day out, you don't know anything ." I'll be the first person to say that I certainly do not have the same insider perspective that you do and I doubt that there's any manufacturer (or producer ) that has the insight that you do, but I'm also not completely clueless .

Bastiat wrote:
If you really were an expert, you would understand how a producer/label could very easily have a license for a song and still be sued for infringement. To reiterate, I'm not suggesting this is the case for Chartbusters or Sound Choice, etc. but what I am saying by having been there is that there's no way of you knowing exactly what their licensing status was at that time, nor will you ever know. It's the same reason why I can't proclaim their innocence anymore than you should be proclaiming their guilt. In this country it's still innocent until proven guilty and if a court of law hasn't rendered judgment then they are still innocent until such time that they do.

I am fully aware of how fluid the different facets of licensing are and how the status can change hour by hour . And it's also impossible to use a broad brush to paint any producer as guilty or innocent on a wholesale basis . Like the court system, this has to be done on a case-by-case basis or in our case , a song by song basis. I'm not interested and never have been interested in painting any producer as a 100% pirate because of this tangled licensing web . But I don't have a problem pointing to a producer as pirating an individual product /song from a publisher or artist. Especially those from the smaller self-publishing artists like Red Peters, Rodney Carrington, Paul Storm, or Tom Leher. While it is certainly easier to determine the status from these kinds of artists because you don't have to try to chase down 10 different people, a producer in the karaoke business will never make a living licensing what few songs are available from the individual, self publishing and not "top 40" artists. Your own admission of the last few years in your own company of licensing what you can – not necessarily what everyone wants – is not going to make you rich.

Bastiat wrote:
All karaoke labels operate under a certain measure of vulnerability. It's the nature of the beast. There will always be infringements by even the most diligent of karaoke companies. It's really a question as to whether or not those infringements are "willful". Each and every song presents its own challenges. For example: Was I able to determine who all of the fractional owners of the work are? Was I able to get in touch with every owner of the work? What if one of the owners/publishers doesn't agree to the same royalty rate? Is there a "favorite nations" clause in some of the licenses but not in the others? Should I proceed with production once I have the first license? Even though the copyright code explicitly states that any owner of a musical composition can grant a license for that work, for all intents and purposes that law is meaningless because publishers don't abide by it (by the way Chip, where does that sit on your moral radar?).
You said it yourself; "it's the nature of the beast." If you don't want to live your life operating under this certain measure of vulnerability, you would find some other line of work. The vulnerabilities are simply one side of the balance, the monetary rewards from accepting that vulnerability is the other side of that balance beam. If the vulnerabilities outweigh the rewards, it would be silly for any person to accept that way of life.

As far as the publishers ignoring copyright law (as seen on my moral radar) it is exactly as you have said: you can't legislate morality. The publishers are fully aware what the copyright code says but they file an infringement suit anyway figuring that you'll pay them a chunk of change just to make them go away. That is also a cheat on my moral radar , although "legally and technically it is within the law" for them to sue you, so I guess that's okay by your standard radar, right? Just a monetary business deal?

Bastiat wrote:
They force the label to get a license from each and every fractional owner of a work, and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it if they want to stay in business, or take on the expense of legally challenging it in a court of law, and believe me it is very easy to miss one. Miss 10 over the course of a year and your being threatened with a million and a half dollar lawsuit. Mind you, in this day and age you can have more than 10 owners and as many different publishers on one song alone! This is just one of many scenarios by which a producer/label can have a license and still be sued. You simply just don't have a clue as to what all of the variables are, or what actually goes on behind the scenes. At the end of the day, the decision to stay in this business under those conditions isn't a moral one, it's a business decision. Entering consent agreements such as the one you mention does not in and of itself prove guilt, it could just be a matter of survival. Again, I'm not saying this is the case as I'm not privy to what went on in the background, but here again, neither are you, and I know firsthand how these things can transpire to make you look like the bad guy.

Once again, it is "the nature of the beast" and it's a risk you assume by simply being in that business. You know it, chartbusters knew it, sound choice knows that, this is not a big secret, nor is it some sort of surprise. The driving force for producers during that time was to produce the most popular songs – as fast as they could get them out while they were still popular. It's the only way that you could sell enough units to make a nickel and cover your costs. The general public and the KJ's always want the karaoke version of "that new song that plays on the radio" for less than a dollar. That's also the nature of the beast.

Bastiat wrote:
I don't know all the particulars in the CB matter but I do know that your description of a "legal loophole" is not possible. CB could not renege on a debt then sell its assets to the "same people" with a different name. That would indeed be a fraudulent transfer of assets no matter whose name was on it so there's a lot more to this part of the story than you're either unaware of or simply not disclosing. Also there's no such thing as "stolen" I.P., you can't "steal" intellectual property.

That's the same thing that the law firm from Tennessee said when they called wondering if I knew where the principles of that company could be found . I know perfectly well that it's impossible to "steal intellectual property" and you knew exactly what I meant by that: producing completely unlicensed karaoke songs and selling them. I don't have that much hair left to split that thin.

Bastiat wrote:
Another instance in which you say you understand things but you actually don't is when you state that "we could go back and forth all day on that one". The point here was that different people have different moral standards. No one was portraying it as a "contest". It's when you try to impose your moral standard on others is when it becomes that slippery slope. For example, I find the thought of your comment but on a "more moral basis" there probably shouldn't be copyright at all if it benefits the general public to be particularly repulsive, but I'm not going to try to impose my views on you. I might try to persuade you to consider why that might not be such a good way to look at it, but I'm not going to stand in judgment of you for your beliefs.

read my post again. You'll find that it actually says that I believe "the one that thought of it first should be the winner " Perhaps I should've said "on a more liberal basis" instead of on a more moral basis. My bad.

Bastiat wrote:
To your point about CB "breaching" its agreement, it sure looks like that's the case but there were legal remedies available to the other party so I'm not so sure that there isn't more to this than what meets the eye. I do know this much, that Norbert was forced into a bankruptcy so there probably wasn't anything worth going after other than the sound recordings which they probably didn't think there was enough value for them to assume the legal expenses of obtaining them.

Once again, it's a matter of believing only half of what you see and none of what you hear. According to pacer.gov, Mr. Stovall has never filed a bankruptcy, there is no bankruptcy on record for Tennessee Production Center and the only bankruptcy ever noted for "Big Mama Music Group" was discharged in 1995 – most likely not Mr. Stovall. So if someone told you that he was "forced into a bankruptcy" there's no record of either a personal or corporate one in the United States. (This is what I mean when I say I "do homework")

Bastiat wrote:
You ask if it's your "business" to police producers? Well actually it might be. The operative word here is karaoke "company". If you were simply a consumer then I might agree with your statement but technically as a business engaged in the act of commerce I believe you do have an obligation to ensure that the content that you purchase is legal. Copyright infringement is what is legally known as a "strict liability" which means that even if you don't know that you're violating copyright laws you are still liable. It does seem a bit unfair but that's exactly what happened to karaoke.com when it got sued for selling infringing products. Evidently they had an obligation to the impossible which was to verify that every song on every disc that they sold was legally licensed. That was the beginning of the end for karaoke.com. Does offering your services to a venue using unlicensed products qualify as a "contributory infringement"? I believe there's a good chance that it could. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to equate selling your services to a venue, to selling those very same products to a consumer.

This is all only just a projection on your part. I'm still waiting for a publisher to sue a karaoke host for using a laptop and while it's perfectly "within the law" to do so , it is not economically worth the time of day . You know it, I know it, and so does just about everyone else. Even Harrington has found that it's much more profitable to sue the venues directly – and I can bet the first question he asks is, "who is your insurance company?"

Bastiat wrote:
And no, I'm not suggesting that you destroy your discs on moral grounds or any other grounds for that matter. To begin with I wasn't referring to legally licensed products in the conversation. What I was referring to were products that were "known" to be unlicenseable, and my charge to you was to destroy discs that you "know" are unlicensed by the label that produced them. The point here being that if you're going to take a moral stand, then in order to avoid the hypocrisy you should abide by your own moral standards instead of speaking out of both sides of your mouth by slamming these producers on one hand, but on the other hand gladly using those very same products in order to enrich yourself, then all of a sudden claim it's not your business. Really Chip?

Can you name a single karaoke producer that would be more than willing to share all of their licensing information on the products that they provide to me - while they're taking my money - in order to ensure that I am "perfectly legal?" I didn't think so. The music publishers are under no obligation to tell me anything – after all, they're not selling me anything and they're not taking my money – but the karaoke producers are. The karaoke producers simply want me to believe that the product that they are selling me is perfectly legal, but asking for proof is "none of your business" and that I should simply trust them. So they're not willing to prove that the product they sell is legal on a moral basis, not to mention that it's none of my business on a legal basis. So now who is talking out of both sides of their mouth?

Bastiat wrote:
So how is it that I have saddled my own moral horse? I made no such claims about them cheating, those are your words. I believe I used the word "set-up", a perfectly defensible infraction under the legal term of "entrapment". No "blurry lines" or moral outcry here. It's simply an argument which would have been used in my defense had it gone to trial, but seeing that you seem to look at everything through your own moral prism, it comes as no surprise that you would see it that way. Sorry ... no cigar here.

Well, on my moral radar, entrapment is cheating. But then again, placing a trademark on an unlicensed product and then suing for trademark protection to enrich yourself twice on that same unlicensed, unauthorized product is also cheating through my moral prism.. However, through your strictly legal and business prism, it must be perfectly acceptable. Your description of being "sued 4 damn times" certainly sounded like moral outrage to me.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:40 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
Hey there earthling12357 ....

What would be helpful to begin with would be to look at the issues affecting the karaoke industry in general. Not just the producers/labels, but also the KJs/hosts and the karaoke enthusiast that regularly attend your shows. There's a lot of good information on KSM from helping people with their sound reinforcement systems to content opinions/reviews, how to handle unruly and/or drunk patrons, and more. The main problems that I see at a glance are issues with certain artists not allowing their songs to be used in karaoke, and licensing issues mainly for the producers.

The KIAA was initially formed to address these problems industry wide. The organization was originally designed to be inclusive at all levels with the understanding that what benefits the KJ, the enthusiast and the producer/label alike is ultimately that which will advance the entire industry. It was designed to focus on the issues that we had in common rather than on our differences. Unfortunately the KIAA was hijacked and turned into an anti-piracy venue. As one of the original founders of the KIAA, I felt the organization was no longer abiding by its original mission statement and I moved away from it, and was no longer an active participant. Whether or not the direction that the KIAA took was the right thing to do I don't know and am not passing judgment here, but it just wasn't what I signed up for nor something that I wanted to be part of.

There are enough smart people participating in this forum that could organize something like that at a KJ/host level, but this time from the ground up. However at this stage of the game I wouldn't expect much if any support from karaoke labels/producers. It may take some time for them to come around but if an organization such as this could be firmly established and successful, then I believe there will be little choice in the matter.

In the meantime it would be helpful to bone up on some of the principals of copyright. When I say that I don't mean you need to take a law course at your local college but more of a layman's approach. Google is a wonderful thing along with Wikipedia, etc. Downloading a copy of the copyright code, especally sections 101 (definitions), section 115 (compulsory) and the section (whose number escapes me at the moment) on audio/visual works and the secion on literary works. Copyrights are basically monopolies granted to their authors. Our founding fathers recognized this so they placed limitations on these monopolies namely in the form of "Fair Use" and short lengths of exclusivity. If my memory serves me correctly the original term was for something like 11 years or so. Over time it's been expanded to 75 years, and you can expect it to be increased again the next time ol' Mickey is about to face his public domain fate. Only this time Sonny Bono isn't around to do their dirty work.

In any event, the desire for people to sing songs that they were familiar with was recognized so at one point congress convened and introduced the "Compulsory" section to the copyright code. It was referred to as the "piano roll" law which would allow people to "copy" those songs mainly to a piano roll as player pianos were the prevailing technology at that time, providing that they pay the composer a statutory fee. Fast forward about another 35 years or so and congress expanded on that act to include "phonorecords" (see section 115 of Title 17). add another 35 years and the courts decided that if people want to sing along to their favorite songs they'll have to do it without the aid of a visual display of the lyrics (ABKCO v Stellar). I think they wanted us to go back to the piano roll.

So the bottom line here is that the only way that our freedoms will be restored that will allow us to sing the next Adele song, or the next Garth Brooks song, etc. is by either revisiting the ABKCO v Stellar case or through legislation. The latter to which is preferable in my view but a bit more time consuming. Will it save karaoke from it's eventual fate? Probably not, but if that fate means its virtual extinction, and all songs are available to be sung then at least it will go down with a smile.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:36 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
Chip, this really is going to be my last post between you and me on this subject in this thread. I'm not one of those people who has to have the last word on a every subject. Also I did accomplish what I mainly set out to accomplish which was to offer a perspective other than that of the KJs, or some lawyer's. I probably wasn't able to change the hearts and minds of most but hopefully it has given some pause to consider the other side of the coin for at least a few them. Mostly however because it has outlived its usefulness. I obviously haven't persuaded you to consider the producer's point of view because in your mind you've already done that. It looks like you've drawn that line in the sand a long time ago, and you'd be damned if you are to cross it. Be as it may, I'll for this one last time address the points I find to be relevant, or the not so obvious.

You are correct in thinking that I did take the accusations against producers personally, but by the same token it wasn't my sole reason or even my main reason for my posts on the matter. I have from time to time checked into KSM over the years in an attempt to get a sense in general where the state of the karaoke industry is from the perspective of the KJ/host. While it's true that I took exception to the accusations, it wasn't like I was deeply offended or even slightly surprised by them.

A consent agreement is not a judgment, not that a judgment is the do all and end all of a matter either. A perfect case in point it ABKCO v Stellar. Judgments are usually dependent upon a couple of things like who can afford the best lawyers, venue selection (oooops, that's right there's no such thing as judge shopping. it's all a figment of our imagination), and maybe not so honest judges, etc. So what if an agreement is monitored by the court. How does that make any difference? So if the Universal legal team negotiates a settlement with CB's legal team by persuading them to agree to the terms of the agreement to bring before the court in order to avert a trial whether the alleged acts of infringement are true or not, how is it that a court supervision of the consent agreement is any more conclusive as to guilt than any other settlement? I can t believe you are so naive as to think the legal system is that altruistic. I wouldn't be so quick to pass judgment on CB because they didn't make a single payment toward the agreement. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps they didn't have the resources to meet that financial obligation? If you were to do that you'd be indicting 3/4ths of the country.

In a previous post you stated that it wasn't your business to monitor the producers to confirm if they had licenses for the products that you purchase, yet for someone who claims it isn't his business you sure seem to be spending an awful lot of time "researching" these producers. By the way, "dropping a dime" on a producer does not endear you to any particular knowledge of licensing. Nevertheless I'm sure you don't harbor any guilt about being responsible for the EMI suit against SC. If by some chance you do, let your conscience be cleared as we all knew that was coming for years before it actually happened. Also with regard to Norbert's bankruptcy, I wouldn't bet the farm if I were you that it didn't exist just because you couldn't find it on Pacer. I won't say anymore than that other than I have strong reason to believe that your "homework" is incomplete.

Your characterization of my analysis of a "contributory" infringement as merely a "projection" I think qualifies as a bit of an understatement. Perhaps you should allocate some of that intense research time that you speak of to your own segment of the industry. I do agree that it is not likely that a publisher will ever litigate against a host due to the economics of it. If they do it won't be for using a laptop anyway unless they can attack if from a different angle such as there being a significant enough alteration of the product when transferring from the original material object to the hard drive. Otherwise it's a loser of an argument and they know it.

You're right in thinking that karaoke producers would not be willing to share their licensing information with you. I can only speak for myself of course but I can tell you that I wouldn't for reasons both of practicality and exposing that information to my competition. However being the ardent researcher that you are, you shouldn't have to rely on the word of the producer to begin with. Wouldn't it be better to retrieve that information from the publisher in question? Unless of course they wouldn't be willing to share that information with you (welcome to our world) in which case that would seem to put you in the exact same position as you suggested that producers are in. Namely, you need to weigh the risk of litigation versus the financial rewards if you chose to stay in business. I don't agree with your statement that the publishers (or possibly the producers for that matter) are under no obligation to "tell you anything" as you've put it. If I was concerned about the legality of my library, I would contact the publisher(s) in question myself and if they refused to comply with my request I would document that conversation or that email or lack of response thereof and would keep that on file that I can retrieve should ever the day come when I would need that as part of my defense in an infringement case. If your only recourse in verifying the legality of your library was to rely solely on the producer(s) or retailer(s) that sold you the content, then I might agree with your conclusion that the producers are speaking out of both sides of their mouths but such is not the case.

In my view your characterization of placing a trademark on "unlicensed product" is irrelevant, but nonetheless I get your point. I've never taken the trademark litigation approach myself but they obviously have their own views on that matter so we'll just have to allow it to play out and let the courts wrestle with that one. As far as my "moral outrage" (another mischaracterization, but even if it weren't), being outraged for being targeted by a bogus lawsuit, is not the same thing as characterizing it and posting it on websites and forums. As many times as I have been sued and in my view transgressed upon, I never once took to the forums or websites and aired my grievances. I never once mentioned that those who were suing me were involved in thousands of lawsuits over a relatively short period of time. I never extensively "researched" my accusers other than in the process of supplying my defense. In other words, I've never turned any of my "outrage" into a moral crusade. I believe you're confusing those who have their own moral code with those who attempt to impose their moral code on others.

So in the end I'm not questioning as to whether or not someone or some entity has morals. What I have been arguing and obviously been unable to articulate is the imposition of those morals on others. It's the ad hominem attacks on producers or whomever that sort of rub me the wrong way. As it's been said two wrongs never make a right and I don't know how to put it into simpler terms than that. It's obvious that with some people their incredulity over producers selling unlicensed products overrides their obligation to get their own houses in order.

If my sole intention was to prove a point, I could have disclosed information in support of my arguments, but most of that is water over the damn, and there's little point in pouring salt into old wounds. Sometimes it's just best to let sleeping dogs lie as I see no point in offering an expose on things that won't be helpful to anyone or anything. So it's on to other things for me at least. I hope to offer things that will be of benefit to KJs and enthusiasts alike. I have a lot invested in this field that I've had to keep under wraps through my own ordeal and now that that is over with I have every intention of being able to use that to my and everyone's benefit.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:00 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
Bastiat wrote:
Chip, this really is going to be my last post between you and me on this subject in this thread.... I obviously haven't persuaded you to consider the producer's point of view because in your mind you've already done that. It looks like you've drawn that line in the sand a long time ago, and you'd be damned if you are to cross it. Be as it may, I'll for this one last time address the points I find to be relevant, or the not so obvious.

While I don't quite understand your "drawn a line in the sand" comment, I will – as I always have – respect your opinion. For whatever it's worth, you are quick to point out that I seem to be "naïve and jump to conclusions" when my opinion doesn't seem to agree with your narrative especially when it's apparent that you have misread what I have written. This is not a tennis match, nor is it a game of one upmanship, but I understand that you're seeing mostly the color red and it's difficult to see around that.
Bastiat wrote:
A consent agreement is not a judgment, not that a judgment is the do all and end all of a matter either. A perfect case in point it ABKCO v Stellar. Judgments are usually dependent upon a couple of things like who can afford the best lawyers, venue selection (oooops, that's right there's no such thing as judge shopping. it's all a figment of our imagination), and maybe not so honest judges, etc. So what if an agreement is monitored by the court. How does that make any difference?

This is the best example of "moral outrage" on your part that I was attempting to point out to you earlier . You berated me earlier because of my moral opinions and stated that you can't legislate morality, especially when someone is well within the confines of the law. But everything that you have just described in your preceding quote is exactly that – well within the law – and that includes affording the best lawyers, venue selection (judge shopping), etc. it may not be ethical and it is certainly on my radar that it's not moral, but it's all still within the confines of the law. So you need to pick one: legality or morality. They are not mutually exclusive. But I understand that morality is fluid it can ebb and flow depending upon what's best for your narrative. I noticed that with the S.P.I.N. fiasco, it seems as though your own "moral radar" indicated that that was a group you did not want to associate with – even though legally, it seemed to be within the law.
Bastiat wrote:
I can t believe you are so naive as to think the legal system is that altruistic. I wouldn't be so quick to pass judgment on CB because they didn't make a single payment toward the agreement. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps they didn't have the resources to meet that financial obligation? If you were to do that you'd be indicting 3/4ths of the country.

I work in the legal system. I know what it is and I know what it isn't and altruistic it is not. The actual terms of the repayment schedule is not public information. I don't have that information, and neither do you. So it's very difficult for you to determine what the overall financial obligation really was. Like 3/4 of the country, most large payments are done on a payment plan over an extended period of time. Just like SC is doing with EMI.

It doesn't matter at all that the consent is monitored by the court. Whether it is monitored is not important, what is important is that an agreement was made and that by your estimations, the company "perhaps didn't have the resources to meet that financial obligation." But they agreed to it anyway and they tanked the business later. But my entire argument had nothing to do with the actions of the publisher in using the law to their advantage over a karaoke producer. My moral argument – if you want to call it that – is making a promise that you know you will not keep in the future and using the "asset switcheroo" to make off with assets to use... yet again. And that's all it was.

Bastiat wrote:
In a previous post you stated that it wasn't your business to monitor the producers to confirm if they had licenses for the products that you purchase, yet for someone who claims it isn't his business you sure seem to be spending an awful lot of time "researching" these producers. By the way, "dropping a dime" on a producer does not endear you to any particular knowledge of licensing. Nevertheless I'm sure you don't harbor any guilt about being responsible for the EMI suit against SC. If by some chance you do, let your conscience be cleared as we all knew that was coming for years before it actually happened.

Now you're simply jumping to conclusions on your own indictment bench and have ignored what I actually wrote. What I wrote was that I had "been accused of instigating the lawsuit from EMI by Harrington." I did not at any time say that I actually did instigate the lawsuit. Harrington's insinuation that he had some sort of information to indicate that I had spoken with EMI prior to the lawsuit was pure bull*hit. His multiple bar reprimands are indicative of his ethics as well as morals.

Bastiat wrote:
Also with regard to Norbert's bankruptcy, I wouldn't bet the farm if I were you that it didn't exist just because you couldn't find it on Pacer. I won't say anymore than that other than I have strong reason to believe that your "homework" is incomplete.

It's not as "incomplete" as you claim. I also have access to other tools that are more costly and thorough than pacer. I use pacer most often because it is inexpensive and accessible to other readers of this forum and the general public. But from your perspective, it's very easy to sit there and tell me that my homework is incomplete – when you're not willing to show how incomplete it is. It once again gets down to a matter of "proofs." I can't prove what doesn't exist – are you unwilling to prove what does? In any case, it's all water over the dam anyway.

Bastiat wrote:
Your characterization of my analysis of a "contributory" infringement as merely a "projection" I think qualifies as a bit of an understatement. Perhaps you should allocate some of that intense research time that you speak of to your own segment of the industry.

Here is what made me characterize that as a projection – from your own words and with emphasis added:
Bastiat wrote:
You ask if it's your "business" to police producers? Well actually it might be.

So even you don't know. You have characterized it as a "might be" and that looks like a projection to me. There's a whole out of the word "if" in that paragraph of yours as well. It's mostly a projection.

Bastiat wrote:
If I was concerned about the legality of my library, I would contact the publisher(s) in question myself and if they refused to comply with my request I would document that conversation or that email or lack of response thereof and would keep that on file that I can retrieve should ever the day come when I would need that as part of my defense in an infringement case. If your only recourse in verifying the legality of your library was to rely solely on the producer(s) or retailer(s) that sold you the content, then I might agree with your conclusion that the producers are speaking out of both sides of their mouths but such is not the case.
And you are fully aware that your suggestion above will not protect a karaoke host company in an infringement case.
So your recommendation for someone with a library like the basic 99 discs from DK, that a karaoke company go through each and every track to see who the publisher is at the credits screen of the track, look up that publisher on ASCAP/BMI/SESAC or even Google, etc.. to find out their name and address and then carefully craft the inquiry on whether the particular list of songs were licensed by any particular producer – even if you have duplicates on other brands – and then document their answer or refusal to answer? That's over 2000 songs for DK alone. How many publishers? How many do I have to track down for the pop hits monthly catalog?

And keep in mind that in this legal world, if they refuse to answer you – because they're under no obligation to answer you – or don't answer you at all and ignore you completely, that still does not get you off the hook for contributory infringement does it? No it does not. The absence of an answer from a producer or publisher in court does not grant permission for a karaoke company to use that track. Strict liability, remember? And as a karaoke hosting company, why should we have to follow around producers and check with publishers in the first place? Past history has proven that believing "trust us" isn't a wise decision.

So what you have described here is basically an impossible task: hand our money to a producer and ask them if the tracks are licensed. When they refuse to answer, (because it's all top-secret information,) and the publisher refuses to answer, (because they're under no obligation to answer,) we are back at square one? Except in this case, the producer is the one holding our money.

Or shall we simply do it as it's always been done: blindly believe the producer when they say "trust us?" You seem to get angry when you find that I've done some research to find out that a certain track or tracks were not licensed by a producer from the owner of the song. I'm not talking about "a misunderstanding on the scope of the license." I'm talking about not ever getting a license for anything – including a compulsory in the first place. But for some reason you seem to be defending the producers willingness and ability to keep any/all licensing information like this under wraps. Why doesn't the producer simply provide a small certificate that the tracks – as of the date of pressing – were perfectly legal and completely licensed? Karaoke hosts really don't care how much a producer is paying per minute in royalty charges – that's none of our business and we never care about that – but it would be nice to know if they are in fact licensed. I would feel much better in a lawsuit situation if I could hold up a certificate in say, "Your Honor, the person that made and sold this to me says that they were properly licensed." But that's probably too simple a solution.

Bastiat wrote:
I never extensively "researched" my accusers other than in the process of supplying my defense. In other words, I've never turned any of my "outrage" into a moral crusade. I believe you're confusing those who have their own moral code with those who attempt to impose their moral code on others.

So in the end I'm not questioning as to whether or not someone or some entity has morals. What I have been arguing and obviously been unable to articulate is the imposition of those morals on others. It's the ad hominem attacks on producers or whomever that sort of rub me the wrong way. As it's been said two wrongs never make a right and I don't know how to put it into simpler terms than that. It's obvious that with some people their incredulity over producers selling unlicensed products overrides their obligation to get their own houses in order

Since you brought it up, I will state this – for the last time. This "moral crusade" of mine (as you have characterized it) was started by a producer and don't be naive here, you know who that is and you know exactly why that is. Over the years I have been very careful only to prove what they have said – have been lies – outright lies. And because I have discovered that their licensing practices have been far less than above board, you are somehow insulted that I (a lowly karaoke host company) would dare challenge them on that or especially expose those lies to the public. You want to make it sound like I'm the bad guy here obviously for daring to question the producer when they have so many other licensing "problems of their own." Perhaps credit reporting companies shouldn't share information on people that lie about making payments on time too?

Yet you suggest that I question the producer – or even a publisher
– to make sure that the tracks I'm using are legal to use for commercial purposes? Are you serious? Why do you become enraged when I actually did that and caught and exposed the producers for lying? Should I have kept that information a secret?

The "moral crusade" is against producers who lie to their own customers. I don't understand why you have a problem with that.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:37 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 8:49 pm
Posts: 300
Been Liked: 50 times
Unrelated but not really. This comes from my ASCAP Musician side and my former Live Concert Sound career.....
Agents, Producers, Publishers, and ANYONE else involved in any art form of any type are often greedy parasites.
As an example, Agents get a cut of everything and tell the client the sound system cost $2,000.00 for the night but actually pay $500 to $1,000. Usually it's only when the artist discovers why they have a peavey system instead of a meyer to they figure it out. The loser is always the sound company who gets blacklisted from that Agent's roster. Everyone wants their cut to be equal or greater than the artist or content producer and has lawyers ready to extract it. It's a shame that the US copyright system is such a mess. I even tried to work with ASCAP to create a license for DJ's and Cover bands as an insurance policy against equipment seizure when a club without licensing was raided.... to no avail. As a TV editor and content producer, I faced similar problems getting permissions to use certain materials even when the true owners of said materials were the ones who commissioned the work in the first place. All kinds of people came out of the woodwork to make sure they got their royalties or fees and in turn blocking the artists themselves from using parts of their own product in their own product. The whole thing is a mess not based on common sense but simple greed. It's no surprise that legitimate US karaoke producers would have a nightmare trying to keep it all legit. Maybe that's why the content today comes out of Europe and Japan where the copyright system actually makes sense. Everything reaches a saturation point where it no longer functions, copyright mayhem has been saturated for a long time.

_________________
Purple Frog Karaoke Cuz we all feel odd and love to "croak" :)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:08 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
8) When you are talking thousands of dollars, I can see where karaoke would be the bottom of the food chain, if the host is getting 150.00 for four hours, if others wanted their cut there would be no meat left on the bone. The only one's who seem interested in this bottom feeding is PEP so far.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:48 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
You know screamerusa, as having been a professional musician for nearly 30 years, I can totally relate and I know exactly where you're coming from. I'm sure we can share some horror stories. In fact, I'll share this brief one as looking back on it, it's pretty funny although it wasn't so funny at the time. Anyway, this agent booked my band for a casual at an Elks lodge. At the time I was fronting a small 6 piece band that was doing T40 as well as the typical hokey wedding repertoire (speaking of hokey, is the hokey pokey really what it's all about? :roll: ). Anyway, the band didn't have a road crew as it wasn't a big money maker nor were we doing any touring as some of us were still in school at Berklee.

Anyway we weren't able to load the equipment and set the stage in the afternoon as we usually did seeing that there wasn't going to be anyone to let us in at that time so we ended up loading in the evening. Unfortunately there were already blue hairs (of which I am now a not-so-proud member) and early birds in attendance as we were loading our equipment through the front door. Now you know you're in trouble when the patrons are telling you to "turn it down" when you hadn't even so much as connected a single cable let alone power everything up.

Well to make a long story short, what the agent failed to tell us was that the gig was for a "Gala German Festival". This agent also told the festival organizer that we were a German band that dressed in kilts and played German music with genuine German instrumentation and the whole 9 yards. You can well imagine the look of shock on both our and the audiences faces when that little factoid was revealed. Things only got worse when the guitar player thought that shouting F... Off into the audience would somehow improve what was already a bad situation.

Fortunately what saved our bacon was that the keyboardist, the bass player, the drummer who also doubled on vibes and me also had a small jazz combo that we did more for fun than profit. So the drummer ran home picked up his vibraphone and we did a jazz thing and sent the rest of the group home who were grateful and gladly obliged. Now this didn't make the patrons totally happy but it was better than doing Layla, My Ding-a-Ling and Long Cool Woman In a Black Dress for sure. Obviously we we were able to get out of there with our lives.

Having said that and knowing how agents tend to be a bit creative when it comes to telling the truth, I can't help but wonder why an artist would pay $2,000 for a sound system and not know exactly what he was paying for. Especially when we're talking about a Peavey versus a Meyer system. I guess it happens but I'm sorry to say that that should have been spelled out in detail in the contract. Also I don't really have a problem with an agent charging the client $2,000 for a $1,000 system providing that a) it's legal in the state in which the contract was drafted and b) he didn't tell the client that he was getting a Meyer system when in fact he ordered a Peavey system, or lie about it in some other way. Be as it may however, I get your point that agents have a reputation (and rightfully so) for unethical and sometimes even illegal behavior.

While I can agree with you that the U.S. Copyright law does leave a lot to be desired, I don't agree that that the copyright laws in the other countries that you mentioned makes more sense. U.S. copyright law is still better than that copyright laws of any other country that I'm aware of, but still that's not saying much. To the best of my knowledge there's no other country in the world that has a compulsory provision written into its code. The one area however that gives some credence to your argument is the statutory remedy, which in my view is clearly out of line with the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Nevertheless the reason that a lot of content (I assume you mean karaoke content) today comes out of Europe and Japan is not because the laws make sense there, it's because the court systems in those countries don't put up with the nonsense that goes on here in the states. In many other countries the remedies for infringement aren't as Draconian as they are here in the states. In most countries remedies for infringement are limited to "actual damages" and there are no $150,000 per infringement statutory penalty possibilities available to the plaintiff. In other words, unless the accused infringer has scored a huge payday on an infringement, it just ain't worth the expense and effort to pursue legal action for relatively small infringements. Therefore it's not a matter of legality but rather a matter of practicality

In spite of what seems to be the popular consensus (at least in this forum) that the tracks purchased overseas are legal, I'm sorry to say that nothing could be further from the truth. Common sense alone should dictate that when one of the no-fly artists prohibits their composition(s) to be used for karaoke, they don't just mean for karaoke in the U.S. They're smart enough to realize that if they allowed their tracks to be recorded and licensed in the UK only, that just as many of those recordings will end up in American KJs hands via export sales than if they actually granted licenses to U.S. producers. They just ain't that stupid ... I don't think :!:


Last edited by Bastiat on Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:01 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
Bastiat wrote:
Well to make a long story short, what the agent failed to tell us was that the gig was for a "Gala German Festival". This agent also told the festival organizer that we were a German band that dressed in kilts and played German music with genuine German instrumentation and the whole 9 yards. You can well imagine the look of shock on both our and the audiences faces when that little factoid was revealed.

Yeah, that's flat-out fraud on the part of the agent....

Typical.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:52 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:10 am
Posts: 313
Images: 6
Been Liked: 52 times
it was one of the band members from Guns n Roses who once said. "If you're not being pirated, then your not"

Many of us would love to see karaoke shows running by the books, but unfortunately, that can never happen, and beside The more karaoke out there, the merrier. Back in the disk spinning days many DJ's would visit the record shows to buy mostly bootlegs and imports.


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:28 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
c. staley wrote:
Bastiat wrote:
Well to make a long story short, what the agent failed to tell us was that the gig was for a "Gala German Festival". This agent also told the festival organizer that we were a German band that dressed in kilts and played German music with genuine German instrumentation and the whole 9 yards. You can well imagine the look of shock on both our and the audiences faces when that little factoid was revealed.

Yeah, that's flat-out fraud on the part of the agent....

Typical.



Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 146 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