Karaoke Forums

Only to those that never had any SC product to begin with. They do not force disc users to buy the gems.

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

Also, funny how someone who never used SC discs, never used a GEM, and has no relationship at all with Sound Choice knows EXACTLY what Sound Choice plans and motives are.

Oh....and what Harrington said.

_________________
-Chris

Their actions speak volumes about what their goals are and how they intend to achieve those goals Chris. Even though Jim throws the hosts a clue here and there. The very fact that SC is the only manu trying the legal process approach in a semi serious way tells you something about the company. It indicates to me that they are not a company that I would want to support with my patronage. They go and hire APS and just like Dr. Frankenstein they are attacked by the monster they created. There motivation is simple they are an out of business company, stuck with a large unsold inventory, the only way they can move this inventory is to create the illusion they are going to get serious with these lawsuits. The reaction is for hosts to pay up, or like venues and hosts have elected to do boycott the label.

Will SC ever be a serious producer again I doubt it. They admit they didn't even have the money 4 years ago to pay APS a $20,000.00 retainer, to get the legal process ball rolling. Now both SC and APS are suing each other for money neither side probably has. Currently SC is continuing the illusion creation much in the way CB did until it's final collapse. I'm just waiting for the downloads, SC on Cloud, and the eventual fire sale to happen. If it does there will still be those out here saying but SC isn't dead yet.

I think what is lost here is they were manufacturers of a product. They no longer produce that product. They are playing catchup and want get rid of they inventory they have been stuck with. They can't get rid of it through normal sales, so they have to resort to this legal process to sell their remaining product. The only way they are going to reach that goal is to force someone to buy their product. For all practical reasons they are out of business, and probably will never return to production. You are right about one thing Lonman I have discs and have not been forced by any manu to buy their product. I bought it because that was my choice as a consumer. The only reasons the hosts are gone after is because of their exposure in public. The vast amount of loses came from the home market user abusers and they will never be made to pay up.

LR, you are so full of it. Do you even actually read what you type? I try but it is so ridiculous.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

No more baloney than what is coming from the other side tim. In the case of SC and APS they have fallen out among themselves. It just depends on which side you chose to believe. Two sides are looking at the same facts and coming to different conclusions about what it really going on.

....troll, troll, troll your boat on karaoke scene ^^^^^^

_________________
-- Mark

HA!....boy oh boy what else can one say>>>

I think it's cute that Lone Ranger thinks he's on one of the sides.

I think it's cute that LR states that SC can't sell the GEM series.

How many here bought the GEM series because they wanted 6000 un-duplicated SC tracks?

More than 1.

Fact.

Try them sometime.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

Just a thought based on one of Jim's statements:

If a suit can or has been " resolved with an audit" one would have to wonder what evidence or proof of wrongdoing initiated the suit in the first place?

Just thinking out loud....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

You've been told many times that the evidence of wrongdoing is the commercial use of unauthorized reproductions of karaoke tracks that bear the SC logo.

You are free dispute that that constitutes "wrongdoing." I will agree that it is only a little bit wrong. SC obviously agrees because it is willing to overlook it if the operator takes the steps that should have been taken before the suit. But it is a wrong that the CDs themselves warn against and have always warned against. No commercial operator who has enough CDs to have 1:1 correspondence can reasonably dispute that the discs themselves warn against unauthorized reproduction.

So, yes, a suit can be--and is--based on evidence of wrongdoing, yet be resolved with an audit.

The CD labels, as I have previously posted several times, say no such thing. They say "No UNAUTHORIZED copies...", not NO copies. Hovever, no definition of "authorized" is supplied.

To repeat an example: The LAW says that copying for single site backup IS authorized, whether any mfr. agrees or not.
The LAW says copying for multi-site use, distribution, or re-sale is NOT authorized, whether KJs agree or not.

NO LAW specifically authorizes medea shifted copies, nor do any state that such copies are not authorized.

That aside, I appreciate and thank you for both the tone and thought of your last post. I mean that.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Jim said no authorized reproduction in his post, not that they said NO copies? Reproduction & copy mean the same thing.
I think the definition of unauthorized is pretty self explanatory to the avg joe (no pun intended)

un·au·thor·ized
/ˌənˈôTHəˌrīzd/
adjective
adjective: unauthorized; adjective: unauthorised
not having official permission or approval.

Can you please add the links to these laws, if it's stated somewhere I've never seen it - other than copies for personal use only were permitted.
If something is unauthorized - it only stands to reason that means that it CAN be authorized with proper channels.

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

"Unauthorized" is an ordinary English word with a plain meaning.

Suppose you are trying to get into a government building. You see a door marked "No Unauthorized Entry." If you go in that door and are stopped by the authorities, do you think it would be effective to say, "But you didn't define 'unauthorized'"?



I have invited you several times to point out the law that says that "copying for single site backup is authorized."

I can point you directly to the law that says that such activities are illegal if not authorized:



That's from the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, § 32(1), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).

I think we can agree that putting on a karaoke show for money is a service that the karaoke operator is providing. As I read it, if you are going to use a reproduction of a registered mark in connection with the sale of those services, you need the consent of the registrant, or you are liable in a civil action.

If you have contrary authority that interprets that section so as to make it legal to use "copies [made] for single site backup," through some exception that is not evident from the text of the statute, by all means, please post it.

You are also certainly welcome to hold the opinion that the law should not be as I have described it. The problem, of course, is that you have essentially impugned my integrity (and that of my client) based on your normative view of the law, not what the law actually says.

Well let's see I believe the company putting out the product or service would be the ones to authorize it, Coke for Coke products, Ford for Ford products, and SC for SC products. Seems it would be common sense to most people. But then again maybe it is Ford who authorizes things for Coke and/or SC because it isn't written in the law.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

A backup, by definition, is not to be used for anything other that archival purposes or to restore information in the case of a catastrophic failure.

Backing up to a PC or even a CD or DVD means the PC or CDR should be stored and the original be used until it is necessary to restore the data. The only reason to restore the data would be if the original failed. Thus ripping to a hard drive or duplicating to a CD/DVD would mean the backup is not to be used in production. It is to be stored for safekeeping.

So authorized in this case would mean they authorize you to use the backup (copy) in a production environment.

You and others will of course disagree and we could go back and forth about it, but that is very tiresome and redundant.

If it is any consolation, I disagree with the fundamental idea of using the original and storing the copy. It's just common sense (and a seriously wonder if that phrase means anything here) to use the copy instead and store the original, thus protecting the original.

But I don't make the rules......

_________________
-Chris

is that wht Micro$oft means as well?...

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

Yet Mtn with all the sales to hosts that want to buy them, there is still years of unsold inventory available according to Jim. The main reason SC can't go back into new production is lack of funds. By their own admission Kurt couldn't pay even a $20,000 retainer 4 years ago to fund the APS launch into the legal process. APS had to fund itself. How long has it been since GEM has come out? If sales were brisk there would be no need for the legal suits, and SC could resume production. They would have to because they would be running out of product to sell.

P.S. I know one GEM sale they will never make, personally speaking.

That would be that would be a task trying to pick a side between the Cattle Baron aka SC and their hired regulator. You are having your cattle rustled by homesteaders trying to survive. So you hire your Tom Horn aka Brophy to solve your problem, then when your hired gun gets out of hand of course you have to hang him. If I have to take a side it sure wouldn't be yours or Brophy's. At least Horn killed for money, you really can't complain about your agent stealing from you, when you can't even pay his retainer to begin with.