Karaoke Forums

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been reading a lot about how I am "Anti-Sound Choice" or "Hate Sound Choice", or whatever.


I am not, nor have I ever been "Anti-Sound Choice", nor do I "Hate" a corporate entity.

1) Sound Choice used to produce decent product- certainly no problem with that. The more quality manufacturers, the better. The reason that SC only has a small presence in my collection is that at the time of major building, I felt them overpriced for what was offered. They have since become more competitive, but I have already moved on to other brands that I found to be of at least equal quality. That's it, no hidden agenda or ill will. Just business.


2) I am not against the efforts of Sound Choice to get or recoup ONLY all the funds due them that were lost through piracy/theft. However, no more than that.


3) I am certainly not against anything that Sound Choice Does that might reduce piracy as long as no innocent people suffer in the process. Don't burn down the forest to get to the poison ivy.


4) I have never met Kurt Slep and have no idea what sort of person he is outside of the business. I have never made negative personal comments about him, and what's more would not support anyone who does. I don't believe in judging someone without knowing them.

In other words: It ain't personal.


That's as simply as I can put it. Now twist away....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

How are innocent people suffering?

As I understand it from reading the many articles on SC's actions, they hire a private investigator in each city to visit various karaoke shows. I'm sure there is some criteria they use which gives them reasonable doubt that the KJ's library is legal and that they actual own every one the SC-manufactured discs of the titles they are using in their show. For instance:

- Companies who advertise 200,000+ titles which, upon their investigation, they find have only been in business a short time.
- Companies who use SC titles which have been removed from the market (i.e. Eagles).
- Multi-rig companies where each KJ seems to have the full SC library, but whose gear is substandard

Remember, these are not criminal actions where you're innocent until proven guilty. These are civil actions where the plaintiff must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable. In the US justice system, anyone can sue anyone for anything.

Can a KJ who is wrongfully sued file a claim against SC for damages? Sure, if he can prove he lost business as a direct result of being sued. Otherwise, all they need do is file an answer with the court stating they indeed do own all the discs for the SC titles they use in their computer-based show and bring them to the trial. Perhaps the KJ will incur a couple of hundred dollars in legal fees which he may or may not be able to recover if it's shown that the court action was erroneous.

But so far I either see companies settling with SC or just ignoring the suit and hoping it will "go away". It doesn't. Under our civil judicial system if someone is served legally and they choose not to answer it, it can result in a default judgment placed against them - but only if the plaintiff can present evidence which in the judge's opinion demonstrates their guilt.

Joe, who said YOU were "on trial" here? And can you explain how "innocent" people are suffering? Defending yourself against legal actions is a cost of doing business, just as much as if someone slipped and hurt themselves because their leg got tangled in your mic cord.

_________________
[font=Lucida Console]DangerousKaraoke.com[/font]
[font=Lucida Console]"Sing for the day, sing for the moment, sing for the time of your life!"[/font]

IMHO, defending oneself against a false accusation by SC is not a reasonable expectation on the part of a business person. It CANNOT be compared to defending oneself in a personal liability suite over a injury caused by a mic cord. That's why I have liability insurance. I do not, however, have "SC Insurance".

Clearly, frivolous suits are brought to court everyday, but it is usually only "deep pockets" that get hit with them, not "mom and pop" karaoke businesses! And a falsely laid claim, by definition is frivolous, particularly when the error can easily be avoided!

I can only infer why Joe holds his opinion, but I can provide reasons for my holding the same opinion about "innocent people" have gotten and will continue to get hurt:
1. SC has not confirmed what their methodology is in determining who they will accuse
2. SC has not acknowledged who their "investigators" are and their credentials
3. SC has not acknowledged who their "auditors" are and their credentials
4. SC has not asserted whether they will sue over just one unpaid for track and/or disc when a person might have 1500 SC tracks that they paid for.
5. SC has not clarified what their position is if someone is found to have the tracks without the associated discs for the Eagles disc or other discs SC DID NOT HAVE the right to produce in the first place.
6. SC has already made erroneous accusations that needed to be retracted

Furthermore, to me, it's a simple matter to identify those who should be investigated. I would characterize those businesses as being in one of the following "groups":

1. The new business that just started up last week with only a HD
2, The business with a HD touted to have a quizillion songs
3. The business with multiple hard drives and multiple rigs and each has the exact same library! I know of one business that actually advertises that each show (rig) has the EXACT same library.
4. The business using a CAVS systems with tens of thousands of tracks, most of which are SC

Wouldn't those be among YOUR prime suspects?

So, the process of identifying suspects is inherently quite simple. Consider further that each of us know who are the real pirates are in our area. Well, if SC were utilizing the correct methodology, they could determine the same!

Accepting that as a fact, as I do, I believe that we as the peers of those accused should have ZERO tolerance for false accusations. And any innocent person who is falsely accused needlessly "suffers", if only emotionally!

If you come to the conclusion as I have that false accusations occur needlessly, then you might understand Joe's and my position. Identifying pirates is not a complex matter and, therefore, the only reason erroneous accusations have occurred is because of haste and/or slipshod methodology on the part of SC, most likely facilitated by a desire to minimize costs and a lack of concern for the innocent!

And how slipshod has SC been? In one instance they accused a guy of pirating because they "thought" he was using a CAVS system. They had to retract their claim when they realized that the equipment that they had observed at the venue (not during a karaoke show) wasn't his. And then they accused a guy of being a pirate who wasn't the host or even the owner of the show in question!

TVMod, perhaps some of SCs investigations are "slipshod" but then again so are investigations conducted by local police, FBI, RCMP, etc. It happens. It is the job of the courts to determine whether or not the procedures are correct and if the Defendant is guilty or not. It is not as clear cut as it appears on TV, which is where most people get their ideas about what happens in an investigation or a courtroom.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I'll accept your experience and knowledge in regard to the above.

HOWEVER:
1) SC is not pursuing a CRIMINAL investigation
2) Their investigators are not being pressured for results by the community in which the victim resides, or politicians or their boss(es)
3) There are, in fact, hundreds of people that SC can rightfully accuse and easily prevail over in court. There is no excuse for them not to methodically accumulate and establish their facts.

And knowing the karaoke industry as well as you do, Timberlea, and being conversant in investigative techniques, do you think that you would make a mistake in identifying who was operating and owned a particular rig at a particular venue on a particular day? I imagine all it would take is to ask the person at the venue who hired the entertainment to divulge who they were. No?

It appears, Timberlea, that you are from the group that says "Oh, well, shxt happens". Joe and I say, SC has admitted making two errors so far and that there is no excuses for erroneously accusing two people when you considered how few people they have formerly accused in the first place. It's not like they have made two mistakes in 1000 instances.

If you and anybody else doesn't get the statistical absurdity of what's happening, I can't say much more about it to make you understand where we are coming from!

Everyone has their opinions. But I would guess that if you were among the falsely accused, you would appreciate that there were those of us who spoke out about the techniques (or lack thereof) in an effort to prevent false accusations from needlessly happening in the first place!

Seems to me if you somehow get caught up in the Sound Choice litigation, all you've got to do is get together with SC, show them your disks and books, then everyone goes to lunch together and talks about whats up the road. (I guess SC would pick up the tab for lunch). I consider showing my disks and books just a minor inconvenience. I just don't understand all the uproar about this if you're legal.

As a side note, I have read in one of the forums, a post directly from Sound Choice. It stated that they would not make a big deal if you have a few extra songs on your hard drive that you didn't have the disk for. They know some disks get scratched, broken or lost. The post didn't say how much leeway they would allow, but I imagine if you had 98% legal disks, and a few you couldn't produce, they're not going to make a big deal out of it.

_________________
My first choice IS Sound Choice.

Joe, ( and diafel too)

We appreciate your crusade on behalf of all the KJ's who should never have to be accused of something they may not have done.

So you are disc based. So why the crusade?

Put the blame where it belongs. On the pirates !!!

SC was forced into this! Would you walk away from a 10 million dollar lottery ticket? Would you turn your back on a business you put 25 years of your life into?

NONE of this " if one innocent is hurt" CRAP would be necessary, but it IS. Why ??? Because of criminals !!!

It is about the criminal !!! Hello???

Sorry, Dan but I must point out to you as someone else did when you posted this exact statement on another thread that you are wrong. This is a CIVIL action, which means that the court can find on behalf of the plaintiff based on a "preponderance of the evidence", NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt". They are two TOTALLY different things. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is reserved for criminal cases where a person could go to jail and their life is at stake. It's meant to be a little extra insurance that a mistake is not made, though we all know they are now and again. A "preponderance of the evidence", however, requires considerably less proof in order to prevail. Hearsay can be acceptable, and a case can be won purely on circumstantial evidence, which can't happen in a criminal case where "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is required. Please check this fact and see if I'm wrong. I guarantee you I'm not.

Just to set the record straight, I am NOT disc based and have not been since I began in this business, although I do have a rental rig that is, and I could easily convert to it if I had to.
There is no crusade, but I hate to see people jumping so quickly on the bandwagon when they clearly don't have all the facts and have no clue what the REAL repercussions could be.
Sound Choice is NOT out to stop the pirates like you all think. They just want to recoup their losses and to set the record straight once again (till I'm blue in the face it, seems), I'm all for that, just not at the expense of someone who has had nothing to do with their losses.
This whole thing reminds me of mob mentality and it can very quickly get out of hand and real damage done.
Once again, I must ask how many wrongly accused people are acceptable? I'm with tovmod when he states that based on a percentage, their rate of error is ridiculous!

As for Skid Rowe, who stated that all one needs to do is get together with SC and show your discs and go for lunch with SC picking up the tab, get real! Do you really believe it's that simple? SC files suit FIRST and THEN asks whether you're legal or not. They've already shown that by filing 2 wrongful suits against defendants who were not guilty at all. All SC had to do was ASK before filing suit. Did they do that? Nope. How easy would it have been to do that and avoid all this crap in the first place, but they didn't? Why? Because they could get more money if they do it this way by using scare tactics and extortion! And do you really think SC will pick up the tab for lunch when they claim to be broke?

Actually Diafel, criminal cases have been won on circumstantial evidence only. But be that as it may, the bottom line SC and others are losing their shirts due to piracy and they have every right to recoup their losses. Whether they care about hosts or not is beside the point. Also "jumping on the bandwagon" works both ways.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Of course they have every right to recoup their losses. I fail to see why I'm continually accused of stating otherwise since I very CLEARLY state the opposite.
What I have stated is that they don't have is the right to accuse without proper proof and thereby causing harm to innocent people. And I'll state clearly for your benefit. I'm on no bandwagon here. It just happens that 3 of us are of like mind, some for slightly different reasons than others.

It seems very clear to me what the options are for the accusers:

OPTION I
Do the proper investigation, as I expect Timberlea is capable of doing, take your time and make sure that all of the "I's" have been dotted and the "T's" crossed

OPTIONS II
Say "Ready, fire aim", shoot from the hip, reattach your toe and let the chips fall where they may.

As for me, I have no tolerance for Option II since this is not a felony or even urgent matter that could be used as reasons to justify OPTION II; neither approach will provide any meaningful benefit to me so why would I condone OPTION II that actually could end up harming me one day or other innocent KJ's?

IMHO, only the naive, and I have met some regarding this particular topic who are IMO quite naive, is unconcerned expending needless time having either lunch, or coffee & donuts with SC.

But more importantly, what type of thinking would lead one to be casual about having his name NEEDLESSLY associated with a crime in legal documents and believe that such an occurrence won't have consequences, as suggested in the following post?



However, if you disagree with my evaluation and don't feel that you are being naive about this matter, then why don't you understand that there are others who are more guarded about their reputations and protective of their time than you? Is that so hard to comprehend?

As I said before, THEY DO! That's how our judicial system works!

Can someone who sues you without merit be countersued for filing a frivolous lawsuit and be liable for damages? Yes!

If you operate a bona fide business, legal expenses are a cost of doing business like insurance.

If you're operating legally, there can be no "preponderance of evidence" that you are not.

I'm sure that the SC investigators don't want to make public their criteria for targeting people for fear that pirates will find some kind of workaround, i.e. take specific "tell tale" songs out of their library.

Seems the SC legal team wouldn't waste their time suing everyone and seeing what "sticks". And since all someone would need to is produce their actual legal library in court, how is that willful persecution of innocent people? Why not just get a Yellow Page listing of all the area KJs and name all of them as defendants?

_________________
[font=Lucida Console]DangerousKaraoke.com[/font]
[font=Lucida Console]"Sing for the day, sing for the moment, sing for the time of your life!"[/font]

Of course, don't expect the licenced investigator tell you how he or she is conducting an investigation. Unless they are called to the stand by the attorney they are working for, they are covered by attorney/client privlige and therefore under no obligation to reveal anything.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I don't know Dan why you would so vehemently want to defend SC? Meanwhile without, IMHO, truly understanding what's going on, you're "all over the board".

For one, no one suggested that SC investigators need to divulge their criteria for targeting a KJ and it really doesn't matter to me who they target. I am only concerned about HOW they investigate the targeted operator!

And as I stated, SC has already made two KNOWN erroneous accusations out of a very small populations. But you don't seemingly care about either the absolute number of errors or relative number of errors, or even why they occurred!

As to the evidence or preponderance of evidence to prove guilt, do you actually understand the nature of SC's suit? Well, take solace in knowing that few people actually do understand it!

Sound Choice is suing under Trademark Infringement statutes. If you investigate the nature of the cases that have preceded Sound Choice's suit you'll find no precedent. Sound Choices suit is unlike any others in the following ways"

SC is not claiming that another company is using their logo in an attempt to defraud the public with counterfeit SC CDG's thereby stealing sales from them, such as is done by the companies distributing knock-offs of Rolex Watches, Gucci Bags, or similar, which can often be found at flea markets and street corners and the like!

And SC is not claiming that another company is using a SIMILAR logo or trademark for a product similar to theirs that is attracting sales away form Sound Choice, even let's say for such items as audio equipment, not just CDG's!

And SC is not claiming that another company is using a logo or trademark similar to theirs and has developed a bad reputation which has thereby resulted in impacting Sound Choices reputation in a negative manner, even if the company doesn't produce CDG's but sells audio equipment or something even somewhat similar.

And the types of claims just mentioned are what all other cases have been built upon!

So, if you have a SC disc that you haven't paid for and display their logo on a screen while playing said disc, have you infringed upon their trademark by doing so? That is, have you taken a sale away from them by using their trademark? ---OR ---- Have you impacted negatively upon their reputation or product's reputation by showing their trademark?

Okay, now what if you have 30 non-original SC discs in your CDG binder but only use the Eagle disc during your shows; the other 29 discs are for your personal enjoyment. Is having such duped discs in your collection that you DON"T use a trademark infringement?

And lastly, is playing the SC Eagles disc, which they never had the rights to produce, any different then playing a disc that Sound Choice had gained the rights for.

Now if you think all of the questions have already been answered and are covered by precedent, you are wrong. And without understanding ALL of the questions that SC actions have raised and acknowledging the implications of what it will mean if Sound Choice actually goes to court, don't be so quick to believe that Sound Choice doesn't want to avoid the courts as much if not more than any accused!

And believing that SC will never go to trial over any of these cases, and knowing from their own lips that they are looking to "settle" with the accused and get their $6500, and are making no pretext about fighting piracy, why should we rely upon SC to be the accuser, judge and jury?

But even if my suspicion regarding SC's strategy is all wet and they do intend to end up in court, are you a lawyer Dan? Is anybody else a lawyer who is posting about matters of a legal nature?

I just love it. As for me, I'll refer my legal matters to my lawyer, and will do my best do avoid needing one so long as I can. And I surely am not going to rollover in response to any SC request regardless of how innocent I believe myself to be! If nothing else, I value my time and it's not theirs to make demands upon!

They DON'T.... all they have is a "someone thinks... " or "someone said".... and they are simply using discovery to find out.

DangerousDan, this is what is called a "fishing expedition."

What "proof" did they have when they named McLeod's AND the KJ?

Let's review: None. and NONE.

All they had was; "there is a CAVS machine and on some nights, a KJ." Period.




That is exactly what they are doing... All they have to do is point fingers and let the KJ's jump through hoops.

HERE'S A SOLUTION:

If SC or ANY OTHER manufacturer were serious about stopping piracy, then they should swallow their pride, get together and come up with a format that CANNOT be ripped, that plays on a propriatary machine, with tracks that are licensed to operate only on that machine registered to the owner, etc.... In other words, design a standard that will protect them in the future.

The horse is already out of the barn on their previous library(s) for all manufacturers. BUT, it would be pretty difficult for a pirate to steal something that won't play and stay competitive. It might take a couple years to show signs of improvement, but it's an option.

HERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH THAT SOLUTION:

The very fact that this is a sensory-dependent product, (you can hear it and see it) is that once the audio hits a wire, it can be copied. Once the video is seen, it can be reconstructed. You can encrypt your tracks til your blue in the face, once the audio is on it's way to an amplifier, it can be captured and the video can be reconstructed with a $99 dollar (or less) cd+g authoring program. And the internet is the pipeline to the world....


So what can possibly be a more permanent solution? If the manufacturers want to continue to sell to the "general public" --and KJ's ARE part of the general public-- nothing will change. If they attempt to "close the industry" by stopping public sales and going with "registered sales", then there's no guarantee that some offshore renegade will simply continue to happily sell discs and tracks over the internet.

This problem is larger than the mass of manufacturers put together.



Right... that's perfect "in theory." In reality, you must prove your actual damages. The KJ and McLeod's gets their names schmeared all over the TV as "pirates" alright.... Now, if you were them, what damages could you PROVE?

"loss of reputation?".... nope not a "measurable loss"

"Slander?".... prove how this has damaged you.

What if a company filed a civil suit against you claiming that you had buried thousands of dollars of their copywritten material under your basement floor that you are intending to sell at a later date?

Gee, "All you have to do..." is dig up your basement some day over lunch while they watch and you prove yourself innocent.... you've got nothing better to do than jump through their hoops... it's no big deal right?

Yes, it is a "preponderance of evidence".... the operative word here is "EVIDENCE."

Their suits are not based on "evidence" they are based on "speculation."

Well guys, all I can say is I'm not getting my shorts in a wad about Sound Choice. If they come around, fine. If you think I'm naive, so be it. I guess I'm just missing the point of all this discussion. Bottom line is, if you're legal you got nothing to worry about.

I've been running my own shows for twenty years now. Maybe I just feel safe because I've been around so long. Heck, I've got a SC disk before they even started making SC disks. (Figger that one out guys).

I agree that their efforts probably won't stem the tide of pirating, but at least they will recover some lost revenue. On the other hand, I think they should go after the ones selling the hard drives on ebay and Craigslist, and maybe go after the multi riggers first, before coming after the single operator.

_________________
My first choice IS Sound Choice.

IMHO, when someone who is drowning is grasping for a life preserver, I don't want to take the chance that I am situated directly between them and their objective since it's quite likely that I'll be pushed under while they strive to save themselves! And right now SC is trying to save themselves!

So again, with the strategy in play, SC is the accuser, the judge and the jury. And that's not what our legal system is all about. Let SC first gather the evidence that someone is guilty instead of knocking arbitrarily on KJs' doors and saying I think you are guilty of pirating, so you must be a pirate and you must, therefore, prove to me that you are not!

SC should take the accused to court rather than threatening them and intimidating the then into letting SC review their library. And even if the library is legal as to SC tracks, that doesn't mean the library DOESN"T contain illegal CB tracks!

And lastly, even if a KJ stops to prove to SC that they have no illegal Sound Choice tracks, what happens when Stellar shows up, then Zoom, then ASK, then Sunfly, then the successors to the MM libraries, SGB libraries, Legends libraries and so on? Sure "Skid", invite them to tea and donate more of your time to manufacturers based upon their unfounded speculations.

If nothing else, allowing these companies access to what you have just doesn't sound like good business to me, especially after the existence of those charges will start to circulate around you community. And with each successive lawsuit it will appear more and more that you must be guilty of something or there wouldn't be all of these companies suing you.

If you owned a lawn-cutting service, would you sue the guy that sells fertilizer?

Why would they want to do that? It's the hard drive sellers that are keeping them in business with people to sue.... Stopping them would be like killing off your own potential client list...

It's a lovely and not vicious circle for them:
(1) Hard drive seller sells a drive and
(2) SC comes in behind them and sues their customer.
(3) Rinse, lather and repeat..... and repeat.... and repeat.

It's like the police in third world countries; they don't bust the drug dealers, they let them get away and bust the rich foreigners that buy the stuff.

Bienvenidos!

Wow folks, lots of fun going on here. Personally I see Joe's point and agree to some extent. If innocent folks are getting indiscriminately caught up in this I do have a problem with it. Dan it's not nearly as easy as you suggest to recoup your legal fees and such if you win the case and prove you were legal.

That said, even if SC files suit before they notify you, there is still plenty of time to show them evidence (i.e. discs) that you are legal. Assuming that once shown the discs they'd be satisfied, they should be dropping the case and wishing you luck. IF SC is not doing this or is not accepting 1-to-1 as a legal situation, then again I have a problem with their tactics. But again, that's only IF they're behaving in this way.

The problem here is I think there is a lot of fear and a severe absence of cold hard fact. None of us really knows (and this was part of Joe's point) how SC is going about identifying the KJ's they're suing, so we're left to speculate. There has been confirmed cases where the KJ was not in violation but SC had filed suit. So again without understanding how that occurred, fear leads us to think of the worst case scenario that SC is being sloppy in their identification of these KJ's.

Personally, I have confidence that SC has just as much interest in only suing the right people as we do. Remember it costs them money to send in an P/I, to file a civil suit and who knows what else. I think we all agree they've got a right to seek damages from people who have stolen their copyrighted material. As long as their intentions are right and they're working to improve their identification process as they go along, I'm good with what they're doing. If indeed it is a bit more hap hazard as has been suggested here and SC does nothing to improve that, then it falls into what Joe's been saying and I'd have to agree.

Of course I still hold the opinion that SC has done this to themselves. They had the opportunity to respond to changes in technology and price themselves accordingly, but they did not. Instead they continued to fight 1-to-1 format shift (until recently) they overpriced their materials in comparisson to others and worst of all spent money creating tracks no one wanted and filled up discs with one popular song and 6-10 others that no one would ever sing. Offering a single track by track purchase option or a better population of songs on their discs would have thwarted much of the issue IMO. Would there still be pirates? Of course. But I have to believe that just like with the RIAA had they stayed current with the changes in technology, much of it could have been avoided.

**IMPORTANT NOTE** I'm not removing any blame from the pirates at all here. Wether you agree with SC's (and the other manu's) marketing practices or not, it's still stealing. My only point is had SC wanted to protect revenue sooner, they'd have been more creative and proactive.

_________________
DJ Tony
Let It Rip Karaoke

Bingo. The music companies were on full notice of all this a decade ago. The fact that they did nothing, essentially hiding their head in the sand and saying "We insist you use our antiquated model of technology until we get around to changing it. By the way, don't expect us to share with you what (if anything) we are doing."

I have zero sympathy for Sound Choice or the music industry in general. They have had a long time to address these issues. If they had spent their time streamlined the rights process and creating statutory policies that allowed people to build music products and pay royalties in any sort of a logical way, instead of fighting hopeless rear-guard piracy fights, they would be way ahead and *we* would be way ahead.

I would love to be able to budget a certain amount of money every month to legal music rights acquisition. But spending the money with no guarantees of legality means it is not an investment.

The reason the West is so much richer than the third world is capital -- the power of being able to build on investment. We cannot build on our music investment, which makes *everyone* poorer.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.