posted
I know that, Timberlea, but how many of them actually ARE? I don't know what it's like in NS (I would love to visit there someday!), but in ON it's a mess. with a bar on every corner, and every one of them providing entertainment, SOCAN doesn't even bother anymore. There's just too many popping up to even keep track of.
Thunder said:
quote:they have not waived any of these righs, however Sound Choice will allow you to transfer them for computer use with their permission (authorization) as long as you are 1:1
Thunder, I'm not the only one who would argue here that in selling the Gem series as MP3+G for the express purpose of copying them over, that's waiving. In fact, there's not a judge in the land that would argue that point. They even advertise that the product is "ready for media shifting". And although they don't have it anymore, they did have a link on their Home Page to PCDJ.
The KIAA (which Sound Choice is a part of, and even founded under the name of KAPA) specifically state:
quote:Q. If I own my own discs, can I load them onto a hard drive to play them in a show, etc.?
A. No, you MAY NOT load songs from other manufacturers on your hard drive. The licensing rights for music on a hard drive machine exist only between the machine manufacturer and the music provider. These rights do not extend to the owner of the machine, to load songs from other manufacturers on the hard drive player. Copying the discs on to a hard drive is still copying the discs. Legally, it is absolutely no different than burning a copy of the discs.
They've changed their stance on this, apparently by offering up these Gem songs as transferable - the legal equivalent to waiving.
Say what you want, but this is how it was interpreted by a lawyer (one without an axe to grind or ulterior motive).
Posts: 127 | From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand your argument the GEM series is sold with an authorization to transfer them to your hard drive, it is in the licensing agrement that comes with the purchase of the GEM series, that is why it was produced. And the format of the GEM series is not changed when you "transfer", "Media shift" while doing CDGs you change the actual content to another form, entirely two different animals. But this is an aside to the actual point you were trying to make about the KAPPA/KIAA statement which I believe if you go back and look they were refering to the loaded CAV player situation, which SC never authorized any of their product to be used on.
-------------------- Cheerleader for the efforts of Sound Choice Chartbuster and Stellar. Posts: 62 | From: Virginia | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
From: Virginia | Registered: Nov 2010 | IP: Logged |
Thunder Member Member # 42265
posted April 01, 2011 05:19 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Joe Chartreuse: BTW- In case you didn't read SC's OWN POSTS, they are licensed in the UK for production purposes. The UK's licensing requirements don't meet those of the U.S. This means they are no more licensed in the U.S. than SGB. Which also means that anyone who buys /leases the GEM series and pays licensing fees to a company that has no licensing in the U.S. needs to attend a business school. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe,
1) Here we are right here on the Sound Choice Board so why don't you copy and paste this post that Kurt made saying that the GEM series disc were not licensed for use in the U.S.?
2) BTW, as you stated in another forum looks like I was banned from posting on this board!
--------------------
1) Kurt stated that SC's only licensing was in the UK. It was the UK's licensing agency that states that their licensing does not include the U.S.- which is why any new imported tracks for re-sale and distribution are banned.
2) Why did you post this lie? Please copy and paste my statement.( I know you can't, but I always ask.)
-------------------- "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
"Disc Based And Proud Of It!" Posts: 23 | From: Bergen County, NJ | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thunder: I guess you don't know very far, because Ernie received his disc and has defaulted on his settlement agreement and he is far from free and clear!
Ernie and SC BOTH say otherwise, at least agreeing that Ernie never got the discs. You calling SC out?
-------------------- "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
"Disc Based And Proud Of It!" Posts: 23 | From: Bergen County, NJ | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess you read different than everybody else!
Please post where Kurt said Ernie never got his disc?
-------------------- Cheerleader for the efforts of Sound Choice Chartbuster and Stellar. Posts: 62 | From: Virginia | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Retroboy: [QB] They have constantly printed on their discs that their software is for "private use only", and yet they sell to us, the KJs of the world, with the express knowledge that we make a living from it. In fact, they charged us double per CD for a long time based on this fact.
Now, they're peddling the GEM series, and it's not even for sale for private use/public consumption - only to professional KJs.[/b]
Not sure what discs you have, on any of the discs i've owned have never once stated 'for private use only'. On ALL the discs I own do state, "Unauthorized Public Performance" which means the bar you play in must have the performance rights like through ASCAP/BMI/SESAC or the Canadian equivalent. If you have one that shows the words 'for private use only' please take a pic and post it! I for one do not think you'll find it!
quote:Originally posted by Retroboy: What I'm reading here is: "Unauthorized duplication, public performance, or broadcast is a violation of applicable laws."
That statement, gramatically, is ambiguous. As far as I've ever understood, I saw it as three separate things:
1) Unauthorized Duplication 2) Public Performance 3) Broadcast
I never once saw it as:
1) Unauthorized Duplication 2) Unauthorized Public Performance 3) Unauthorized Broadcast
That quote I originally read to you was from Sound Choice Star Series disc 2300.
Now, if they wanted to be completely clear in their legalese, it should have stated:
"Any duplication, public performance, or broadcast of the material on this disc in whole or part without authorization and representation from appropriate licensing bureaus is a violation of applicable copyright laws."
So, incidentally, how many of you guys (and gals) double check with your venues to make sure they're members in good standing?
Timberlea said that in Canada they have to show notification prominently and publicly, but I know of one of my former establishments who had an old SOCAN sticker on their front door but hadn't paid their dues in the entire time they'd had the bar - the sticker was from a previous owner.
So do you check with the bar owners and managers? And if you're not, aren't you just as guilty of breaking the law, because you're not "authorized", regardless of disc or digital?
(...)
I didn't think so.
And if a bar owner confessed that they were lapsed in their standing, would you stop working for them?
posted
I don't look at stickers, they mean squat. I look fot the actual licence, which in our establishments are displayed with their liquour and restaurant licences.
Posts: 384 | From: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been hanging out in bars for 25 years, and never once seen a SOCAN licence in a bar. Ever.
Posts: 127 | From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Retroboy: We've already been over that, Lon.
...but the disc doesn't state "Unauthorized Public Performance", either.
Again not sure what you are looking at on your disc. Each and every SC disc I have state the following Warning: This material is protected by Federal Copyright Laws. Unauthorized Duplication, Public Performance, or Broadcast is a violation of applicable laws.
quote:Originally posted by Retroboy: So do you check with the bar owners and managers? And if you're not, aren't you just as guilty of breaking the law, because you're not "authorized", regardless of disc or digital?
Actually yes I do check with the bars to make sure they understood about the publishing fees. My current club used to throw away the material (thinking that it did not apply to them since they are tribal), they got nailed & now pay all 3 for the last 12 years. If a club does not pay their licensing I will not play it. Been there, done that in the past where the club was shut down because of it. No I would not be breaking any laws, it's up to the bars to pay these fees, not the dj / kj. But if a bar happened to be shut down (again this did happen to me once) and your equipment was in there, you may have to go through lots of hoops to get it back. Luckily the time it happened to be I had got my stuff out the night before.
quote:Originally posted by Retroboy: We've already been over that, Lon.
...but the disc doesn't state "Unauthorized Public Performance", either.
Again not sure what you are looking at on your disc. Each and every SC disc I have state the following Warning: This material is protected by Federal Copyright Laws. Unauthorized Duplication, Public Performance, or Broadcast is a violation of applicable laws.
He's just trying to be too literal for argument's sake on what he perceives to be a grammatical error. He thinks it should say unauthorized before each of duplication, public performance and broadcast, not just once.
quote:Originally posted by Thunder: I guess you read different than everybody else!
Please post where Kurt said Ernie never got his disc?
I'll play your game of stupidity: please post where either Ernie or SC says that Ernie received the discs. Just like my four attempts to get this lying jack to post SC's claim that he said he got via e-mail that SC was licenced in the U.S.
He lies consistantly, with nothing to back it up. Here's two for you, Steve:
Either admit that you are lying, or post the e-mail that you say Kurt sent to you stating that SC's tracks are licensed in the U.S.- and I WILL send your reply to Kurt...
Either dmit that you are lying, or post your proof - that BOTH SC AND ERNIE DENY- that Ernie got the GEMS. I know it never happened because SC broke the agreement and sent them to the detective ( actually a bad immitation of a pro) rather than Ernie, and Ernie told them to screw off. But go ahead, post the statement ( I assume yo say from Kurt, who pretty much calls you a liar in this regard) that says that he got them- or admit that you are lying....AGAIN.
You keep sticking yourself. You continue to lie, yet only in regard to SC, get caught, laughed at by those in the know- and probably Kurt as well, though not to your face- produce nothing to back up your words ( Chip does, you don't) and look just silly. WHY?
I KNOW you are a better thinker than this. What could possibly make you swallow what pride you have and continue to post this drivel? Money? A free pass? Elimination of competition? Do you really need it bad enough to prostitute yourself? Is this the type of person you want your family to remember? Your Legacy? Really?
-------------------- "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
"Disc Based And Proud Of It!" Posts: 23 | From: Bergen County, NJ | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's just trying to be too literal for argument's sake on what he perceives to be a grammatical error. He thinks it should say unauthorized before each of duplication, public performance and broadcast, not just once.
Granted, I am playing Devil's Advocate here, but like I said, the wording is ambiguous, and would be the first thing a lawyer attacked.
It seems to me that there are several loopholes by which someone could put a small portion of the blame on Sound Choice when trying to establish Fair Use.
Posts: 127 | From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL Joe you are going to get all bent out of shape over nothing I PMed the information to another member, they have it, my guess is they are still awaiting the information to the contrary from you! I wonder who they think is a liar? I am no longer able to read anything you post on the KS board sao what ever you are writing I don't respond because I can't see it!
Go back to the the OKJT board and do a little research you will find a post there "BY KURT" which states that Kurt personally delivered Ernie's disc to him after he refused to take them from the investigator. Since I am not a member there you will have to search for it on your own!
BTW just so you know (and again you misread it) Kurt said "ultimately" Ernie will not be getting two sets of disc for $3,000!
Meaning those two sets of disc he got are going to cost him a whole lot more than #3,000. If you go back and look you will find that Ernie even stated he had signed a settlement agreement with SC for $51,000 of which he had only made two $500 payments on it and was refusing to make any more.
Now let's see normally a pirate get's to settle for $6,500 and gets a set of the GEM disc, Ernie settled for $51,000 + $3000 and got two sets of Sound Choice "CDG" disc, now I wonder who actually got the better deal? LOL
Again Joe it is a simple matter of reading comprehension!
-------------------- Cheerleader for the efforts of Sound Choice Chartbuster and Stellar. Posts: 62 | From: Virginia | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's just trying to be too literal for argument's sake on what he perceives to be a grammatical error. He thinks it should say unauthorized before each of duplication, public performance and broadcast, not just once.
Granted, I am playing Devil's Advocate here, but like I said, the wording is ambiguous, and would be the first thing a lawyer attacked.
It seems to me that there are several loopholes by which someone could put a small portion of the blame on Sound Choice when trying to establish Fair Use.
First of all there is nothing ambiguous about a comma in fact the comma is specifically addressed in Black's legal dictionary.
Commas in a series
In legal writing, we use a full set of commas for items or phrases in a series. We do not omit the comma before the conjunction.
Anytime you have listed items that are connected under a united action "unauthorized" each item in the list would be followed by a comma.
Any first year law student would spot that pretty quicky and realize that each action listed would be covered under Unauthorized!
-------------------- Cheerleader for the efforts of Sound Choice Chartbuster and Stellar. Posts: 62 | From: Virginia | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Retroboy: Are you a first year law student?
No,
But I learned to read in kindergarten class and I own a full set of the Virginia code (circa 2003) (as well as knowing how to pull all the current laws up on the internet) and Black's Law Dictionary, and I have a few years experience in the civil courts.
If you have talked to a lawyer who said he can beat Sound Choice on that disclaimer alone, I say go for it!
-------------------- Cheerleader for the efforts of Sound Choice Chartbuster and Stellar. Posts: 62 | From: Virginia | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking as a lawyer I think the reasonable reading is that unauthoritzed does modify all 3 actions. This is not quite my field but I would also tend to think that even if SC turned a blind eye on one aspect of that trio that might only provide an estoppel defense against that aspect (performance in Retroboy's argument) and not against one (duplication) that SC has consistently defended. Lastly, IMHO, allowing downloads of the GEM Series for people who purchase that product does not mean that SC waives any rights to challenge duplication of discs or other products where they do not give those rights.
Hopefully we will eventually get to the point where request threads generate more traffic than this one.
Posts: 1278 | From: Milton, MA 02186 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
