Karaoke Forums

cool, there is a permanent injunction in black and white.
thank you Chip
has anybody found the list of songs? i searched many times before, but can find nothing. hell, i could note even come across this court order.
apparently i suck at searching online.

cool, there is a permanent injunction in black and white.
thank you Chip
has anybody found the list of songs? i searched many times before, but can find nothing. hell, i could note even come across this court order.
apparently I suck at searching online.

I have seen that "injuction and dismisal with prejudice" but knowing how to read I want to note something that many appear to be missing, this was in response to and part of a settlement agreement and the injuction is against infringement of copyrights of the music held by Famous Music. What the manus and the copyright holders work out after that have no effect and Famous Music could have issued permission to Chartbuster to produce karaoke versions of every single song held by them.

Chartbuster never stated that this did not exist in fact they said several times that it did and they also said that every song in their current releases was licensed. The contention then becomes "current releases" (that would be what they currently offer for sale). Has anybody bothered to look at what they currently offer for sale. Take a look and then look up on the BMI, ASCAP and SESAC data bases for songs owned by Famous Music and compare that too the Chartbuster library and you will have the real answer.

Thanks Chip, that is the list that even Chartbuster was asking for on many threads about this. sure, they probably have it, but i see it was not that hard for some to post.

by the way, if i may ask, where did you find it? i could not find it to save my life.

and i guess if they are back on the presses after a legal permanent injunction, Famous, or more likely Sony who bought Famous, made arrangements to license them or they would be in some really hot water right now for ignoring a direct court order. at least they are licensed now.

I just did a search of 10 random picks from the list that Chip posted and then looked the songs up on Chartbuster's CURRENT RELEASES and they were 10 for 10 on Chartbusters offerings, like I said knowing how to read and understanding it has a lot to do with it.

Now I have to go to work!

ok, so just remove all your U.S. produced discs and you can continue with this rant. as long as you continue to use and support them, you are no better than the rest of us.



ok, fair enough. disagreeing with one manus business practices is cool.



ok. post it. CB has said it does not exist, prove them wrong, or is this where you tell me to do it myself because you do not really have it?



yup, they f**ked up and admitted it, and payed heavily for it. most major corporations have f**ked up at some point, been sued and paid out the whazoo for it. if they learned and moved on, cool. i know, SC has NO U.S. licensing for anything they have. i and many others are still waiting for any proof whatsoever of that.....oh....wait....i know.....go look it up myself as you do not have it to post.



so it is ok if you wanted to copy your 8125 15 times? of course not, but for them to say you are doing wrong is wrong? they paid the fees, and the damages after the fact, got spanked, and had to destroy 1000 copies of the discs after paying for them to be printed. not like they made them and said "oh, sorry, we wont do it again" and left unscathed.
it cost a lot of money in damages.

i am not attacking you as a person or KJ Joe, this is debate on issues and nothing more, i just wanted to state that in public. i do not think you are a pirate supporter or anything of the sort.
just thought i should state that before someone might mistake these posts for shooting at you directly.

I have seen that "injuction and dismisal with prejudice" but knowing how to read I want to note something that many appear to be missing, this was in response to and part of a settlement agreement and the injuction is against infringement of copyrights of the music held by Famous Music. What the manus and the copyright holders work out after that have no effect and Famous Music could have issued permission to Chartbuster to produce karaoke versions of every single song held by them.

Chartbuster never stated that this did not exist in fact they said several times that it did and they also said that every song in their current releases was licensed. The contention then becomes "current releases" (that would be what they currently offer for sale). Has anybody bothered to look at what they currently offer for sale. Take a look and then look up on the BMI, ASCAP and SESAC data bases for songs owned by Famous Music and compare that too the Chartbuster library and you will have the real answer.

Thanks Chip, that is the list that even Chartbuster was asking for on many threads about this. sure, they probably have it, but i see it was not that hard for some to post.
by the way, if i may ask, where did you find it? i could not find it to save my life.

and i guess if they are back on the presses after a legal permanent injunction, Famous, or more likely Sony who bought Famous, made arrangements to license them or they would be in some really hot water right now for ignoring a direct court order. at least they are licensed now.

It depends on how it is asked, if Chartbuster was asked for a list of songs that they had which did not have any licensing, they can't post something they didn't have.

If they were asked to post a list of songs that they were permanently barred from ever producing, then again they could not supply such a list.

If they were asked to produce a list of songs that had an injuction order signed saying they could not produce said songs in an infringing manner then the list would have been extensive. (it would in fact be just about every song available, because the law states that you can't do this)

BTW there were songs on that list that as far as I can tell from any data bases I have searched that Chartbuster never did produce.

It really all depends on how you want to twist it.

1) No ons seems to have seen a "dismissal with predjudice" of this permanent injunction- could you post a link?

it is titled "Agreed Order For Permanent Injunction And Dismissal With Prejudice".

Note the fourth bullet point:

"4. That all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendants... ...are hereby dismissed in their entirety with prejudice with each party to bear it's own costs."

So, it would seem the "written settlement agreement" is that the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in exchange for the Defendants being "permanently enjoined from recording, copying or otherwise using in any manner the subject of Plaintiffs' music copyrights, including... ...(Subject Works)"

Now, I do not think anyone here would seriously believe that Chartbusters would deliberately defy a court order and risk serious criminal charges and penalties (including imprisonment) just to release some unlicensed tracks that are the subject of said court order. I'm sure the Plaintiffs would be quick to bring to the attention of the courts any such indiscretion.

On the other hand, I do think it is quite within the rights of a party to not divulge information to those whom it considers is none of their business.

I just did a search of 10 random picks from the list that Chip posted and then looked the songs up on Chartbuster's CURRENT RELEASES and they were 10 for 10 on Chartbusters offerings...

Actually Joe, the Case No. 3:06 cv 00468 that was linked to here

http://dkusa.com/CHB/famousinjunction.pdf

is titled "Agreed Order For Permanent Injunction And Dismissal With Prejudice".

Note the fourth bullet point:

"4. That all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendants... ...are hereby dismissed in their entirety with prejudice with each party to bear it's own costs."

So, it would seem the "written settlement agreement" is that the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in exchange for the Defendants being "permanently enjoined from recording, copying or otherwise using in any manner the subject of Plaintiffs' music copyrights, including... ...(Subject Works)"

Now, I do not think anyone here would seriously believe that Chartbusters would deliberately defy a court order and risk serious criminal charges and penalties (including imprisonment) just to release some unlicensed tracks that are the subject of said court order. I'm sure the Plaintiffs would be quick to bring to the attention of the courts any such indiscretion.

On the other hand, I do think it is quite within the rights of a party to not divulge information to those whom it considers is none of their business.

Actually Joe, the Case No. 3:06 cv 00468 that was linked to here

http://dkusa.com/CHB/famousinjunction.pdf

is titled "Agreed Order For Permanent Injunction And Dismissal With Prejudice".

Note the fourth bullet point:

"4. That all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendants... ...are hereby dismissed in their entirety with prejudice with each party to bear it's own costs."

So, it would seem the "written settlement agreement" is that the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in exchange for the Defendants being "permanently enjoined from recording, copying or otherwise using in any manner the subject of Plaintiffs' music copyrights, including... ...(Subject Works)"

Now, I do not think anyone here would seriously believe that Chartbusters would deliberately defy a court order and risk serious criminal charges and penalties (including imprisonment) just to release some unlicensed tracks that are the subject of said court order. I'm sure the Plaintiffs would be quick to bring to the attention of the courts any such indiscretion.

On the other hand, I do think it is quite within the rights of a party to not divulge information to those whom it considers is none of their business.