Karaoke Forums

Um, Lisa, what do you think tSC has been doing for the major part of their income? "Suing a bunch of small karaoke business owners" pretty much covers it, I believe.

Do they get lot from each? No. However, they are suing in QUANTITY, and they are making a nice profit on the settlements of intimidated and under-educated KJs.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I suppose you're correct there... wonder if they'll have a yard sale of all the equipment...

_________________
SoundChoice Certification coming soon!

Intimidated? and Under-educated? Um... if I were doing something wrong... I suppose I'd be intimidated by a lawsuit. But ignorance is not a defense when breaking the law. People that steal music HAVE to know that it's wrong and illegal... what more education do they need?

_________________
SoundChoice Certification coming soon!

Do we know how many, if any, were 1:1 and paid anyway out of being undereducated? Or have the people who paid up been pirates?

An enormous administrative process to maintain 2 seperate documents? Again I understand the reasoning for the financial information in a post-suit audit situtaion, but that's not what we're talking about here.

If you have loyal customers willing to comply with your clients request even if they don't necessarily agree that they should have to pay for it, is it really that much of an effort to have 2 seperate documents.

Non-certified 1:1 KJ's aren't the same animals as Pirates nor have they harmed the industry and I'd think they deserve better.

How difficult would it be to differientiate between the following if they were actual documents?

3-28-12 COVENANT NOT TO SUE VOLUNTARY.pdf
3-28-12 COVENANT NOT TO SUE POST SUIT.pdf

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

You are quite the funny individual.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Sorry to dissapoint you smooth but I was quite serious in my response.

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

I know you are, but I can find humor in everything.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Sounds doable to me. After all why should we be lumped into the same harsh conditions when we have done nothing wrong.

Jon

Kind of like keeping license agreements for every song produced?
Or documentation for every lawsuit filed?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Check the list of those who purchased audits and gem sets.
In soundchoice's chosen words at the beginning of the covenant not to sue, they clearly state that if you are not just starting out your only reason to be making your purchase is because you were intimidated by their lawsuits:



Their website and all other advertising clearly represents the karaoke jockey as a pirate. Nearly everybit of what I have seen that Soundchoice as a compnay has done in the public eye this past half decade has been demeaning to the karaoke jockey and the industry as a whole.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

This is kind of what I meant. Who has proven ANYTHING in regard to BREAKING THE LAW? Who is being sued for STEALING MUSIC by Sound Choice? Absolutely NO ONE.

Hence, the need for more education. People read about these cases, the cases have been explained, yet people STILL see them as cases against music thieves, which they are not.

You DO realize that if a KJ has all the SC discs to match the tracks in their PC, SC has to drop the case despite the fact that they still may have stolen music from other manufacturers RIGHT? SC is not going after PIRATES, just media shifters. Why is this difficult to understand?

People still speak of laws broken, when that has NEVER been proven. I would also add that these are CIVIL suits, not CRIMINAL suits. WHile there may be CIVIL liability (which I doubt), no one has yet been held forward as CRIMINALLY liable- no LAWS have been claimed to be broken.

No KJ has yet been tried in a court of law and lost a trademark infringement case to SC. That being the case, there is absolutely no proof that SC would be owed a dime. This is why I state that under-educated and intimidated KJs pay the settlements.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

They may be including media shifters (of SC products) in with the pirates - only because most media shifted kj's do not bring their discs with them, however, like you said, once proven they own the discs, case dropped - no further action against that media shifter. They ARE targetting pirates that have never paid for any SC disc - they can't enforce piracy on labels they don't own.

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

because of privacy clauses, do we know of any pirates sued yet?
i don't really remember, not a snippy comment....a question.

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

Except now if named in a suit in order to prove 1:1 there's a $500 base fee for the audit.

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

Only if the KJ agrees to pay it, or simply let them compel it through discovery.

But in any case, if it were to get all the way to discovery, I don't believe it should be a "wholesale inspection" of your library, but rather an inspection ONLY of the discs that contain the tracks they claimed they "observed."

Your mileage may vary.

I agree. I don't think anyone that is 1:1 and named in a suit should 1) pay for the discovery and/or 2) be an open book with their library.

The case is supposed to be based on evidence of wrong doing right, so at that point SC should say "Our investigator witnessed you playing X song on such and such date and we need to see that disk." With their 2% allowance and in order to build a more substantial case I'd think they (SC) would want more than one or two examples.

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

Their "2% allowance" wouldn't factor into discovery at all... so I'd toss that out of the equation completely... it should be a straight disc-for-track inspection.


In a jury trial, this is where a jury comes into play because let's say in a hypothetical situation, that;

(1) You have an investigator that claims he saw the KJ play "Kill My Lawyer" by Eddie Murphy with an SC trademark. (there is no real KJ track... it's a joke.... chill out.)

(2) The KJ then claims that the investigator is lying and that song was never played that night and that the KJ doesn't even own the song on any disc or brand. And further, if it was played, it must have been a patron's own disc or perhaps one furnished by the investigator himself to be played as a litigation trap.

So, there's no disc to see and now you have to decide which of the two is -- or is not -- telling the truth.

The difference that the jury plays as opposed to a judge in this trial is that the jury "finds the facts" and the judge "applies the law":

(1) The JURY determines what were the "facts" of the case and will ultimately decide which of these two is -- or isn't -- telling the truth or if it's something in between.

(2) The JUDGE will determine how the "law" is applied to whatever the jury finds to be the facts.



In a "bench trial" the judge alone makes both the decision on the facts and how the law applies to those facts.


So, if you are sued (which is what it is and not just "named") who do you want to be the "fact finder?" A jury of 7 or more "of your peers", or a single judge?


(sorry had to edit this... I had the wrong word above... It's better now.... straightened out the tinfoil hat)

....So what about the KJ's/Pirates that have altered the Graphic portions of their files by taking off the Manufacturer's Trademarks. I found a thread, in some forum, speaking about this happening. Are they going after them?

I'm not sure... HarringtonLaw needs to place his opinion on this one....

But I'm also pretty sure it's not going to come down to any other graphic element (like typeface... or "look and feel") since these tracks can be purchased from other sources labeled as the "karaoke channel" as mp3+G files.... with the exact same typeface and sweeps, etc...