Karaoke Forums

djjeffross, there were several kjs caught up in the litigation in my area that I believe are not karaoke pirates. Maybe I am making too much of an assumption because of all the legal action around here. I certainly don't agree with SC or their methods of investigation. If any of the folks who were caught are innocent, I hope they do countersue and get reimbursed for all their time and expense. This whole mess is one of several reasons I stay out of the karaoke business in my market except for an occasional private show. I've had a couple of my venues ask us to do it but it is not worth my time and trouble. I am happy doing what I do, being in the entertainment business is difficult enough now without the lawsuits, drama, and he said, he said.

Unfortunately Rick you are in one of the states these sort of suits thrive in. Overall it is having a negative effect on the karaoke industry, not a positive one, if experienced hosts don't want to be bothered with karaoke. I'm sure many of the venues will have the opinion like you, karaoke isn't worth the legal problems that go with it. That gets back to my question if the process has a net negative effect on the industry, and SC really is not winning the war, why continue backing a losing policy? Have a nice day.

Well Lone, you are making a lot of assumptions. There are many hosts using their legally bought SC music in the authorized way. If, as you are saying, after a few years of lawsuits, SC is losing lawsuits and money, why would they continue to do so? They wouldn't. It is obvious, to the displeasure to some, that SC is winning much more than they are losing.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

He actually doesn't, because we are defending him at no charge. That doesn't make the countersuit any less ridiculous, though.

If they are winning why 26 dismissals in Las Vegas?

If they are winning why have only a fraction of 1% of the hosts become certified?

If they are winning why has SC not resumed production of new product as promised earlier this year by James?

If they are winning why are hosts losing venues for using the SC product?

If they are winning why are they not more massively addressing the theft of their product, since James says 95% of the product used is stolen?

This question of why they are doubling down on a losing situation, is beyond rationale explanation, unless like in poker they are running a bluff. If that is the case they are gambling not just with their chips, but everyone's stack, that is bought into their game.

The dismissals you are referring to were parties whom the now-fired case manager did not serve, or at least did not inform the Court of their service, and who were dismissed because there is a time limit on service. The case manager has been fired, as has the attorney who botched that filing. SC is proceeding against the rest of the defendants, including the defendants who were dismissed because the attorney couldn't be bothered to file a timely response.



I didn't "promise" that. I said that we were aiming to return to production by the year end. At the time, I didn't expect that a couple of vendors would misappropriate more than $200,000 from SC, either, so there's that.



They're not.



We are.



The real question is why you care enough to make the same false statements in fifteen different threads. You've already said you don't use SC's product. You've already said that you're retiring in a couple of years anyway. You've already said that SC hasn't been active in your area.

Here's the bottom line: We're going to do what we're going to do. That means (a) continuing to pursue karaoke pirates from small, one-rig operators up to the largest distributors of pirated hard drives, (b) encouraging legit operators to get certified, (c) educating venues on the need to police their vendors more carefully, (d) working to return to production, and (e) developing technological solutions that allow legit operators to operate conveniently while preventing piracy. That is not an ordered list of priorities--all of them are co-equal in terms of importance.

And if I have anything to say about it, by this time next year, we'll have made substantial progress on all five of those fronts.

yeah yeah. If any of us are going to believe that, I know you have a bridge to sell us. Those technological solutions should have already been put in place. If you want to force your settlers to buy your GEM series, that's fine. What you need to do is make a way for the rest of us to buy songs one by one, as we need them, like everyone else is doing. Until then, who really cares? Until then you aren't helping anyone but yourselves.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I just wonder how you can do all this when by your own admission vendors have ripped you off for 200 g's. 95% of your profits have been diverted through theft, your settlements lately have been for the full retail value of stolen product. As of now you haven't resumed production, even if you wanted to, you currently have no production capacity. Add to this the cost of the cases botched by the Attorney in Las Vegas, what does that leave you in your coffers. You should really read some of the posts here and you would find out some manus are discouraging hosts form using your product, or face dismissal. The venues don't want to run the risk of getting involved in your legal process. In the face of all of these losses, how can you continue to wage your legal war? Money is the sinews of war, and for the matter legal battles. You might be pushing on five fronts but currently you have only solved a fraction of 1% of the total problem. While it is true I have nothing to fear from you, I do care about this industry, and I don't think one label should dictate to a whole industry. The dog wags the tail, the tail doesn't wag the dog. Have a nice day.

You and Chip must know each other. You both are very similar.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

By my estimation, Sound Choice only has to sell 33 sets of the Gem Series to recoup their $200,000 that their "vendors" have stolen from them. I hope Mister Harrington doesn't get paid up front too. Miste r Harington claims to spend 80% of his time working on Sound Choice issues. That would be 32 hours out of a 40 hour week. I know that there are some attorneys that command $500 per hour or more. That would be $16,000 per week. Sound Choice would have to sell at least 3 GEM Series' a wekk just to stay even with their legal bills. That comes to 150 GEM Series' per year for the last 3 years which would come to at least 450 Gem Sets. I don't see that many people listed on their web site as certified host. Does anyone else? I Only know of one person in my area that succumbed to the presuure and bought the Gem Series. Two weeks later, she was replaced by a pirate. I guess she had to raise her price to make up for the cost of the Gem Series and it cost her 10,000 a year. Way To Go Sound Choice. Way to help out the legal KJs.

No, it's 80 hours per week on SC, and it's closer to 95% of my working time. Legal working time, anyway.

I don't think it's any secret that my arrangement with SC is not for an hourly rate, but when I do bill hourly, my rate is a modest $300 per hour, which is slightly above average for my experience level and region. I say "modest" wryly; it's hardly a modest rate, but it is lower than $500. It is not atypical to see IP specialists who are identical to me in all respects but have about 10 years more of experience to bill at $800 per hour.



No one is under pressure to buy the GEM series unless they aren't operating legally in the first place, but if what you said is genuinely the case, if she had called me (or SC), she would have gotten significant assistance from us. The venue would have gotten a phone call (or if logistically possible a personal visit), a demand letter, and if they persisted, a summons and complaint. But we can't help people whose problems we don't know about.

1) OOOO, THAT's interesting. Which of SC's vendors "misappropriated" 200K, and how? Or did SC simply lose another court case to a publisher/owner?

2) Hmmm. When did SC start pursuing pirates (actual music thieves)? As far as I know, they only sue for Copyright Infringement based solely on the display of their logo from a computer source, with no mention in any case of music theft, except in the miniscule amount of CL HD cases that they have brought up.. Was there a sudden recent change to SC's actions?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe... The OPERATIVE words here are As far as I know,

In Jame's defense, you don't know everything that James is pursuing on SC's behalf. Not everything is posted in those Law Sites (where you folks pull up current cases of interest). James has already posted (several times) that he is not at liberty to post every single thing that SC has done, and what they are continuing to pursue. It's already been made abundantly clear that we don't all agree with SC's methods. But, while it may not be evident to us, it doesn't mean that they aren't doing anything.

So which is it James, you have an army of investigators who are going to fan out across the country in a karaoke dragnet, or hosts have to provide you with leads ? You keep going on about how you have the pulse of the industry, and know what's going on out here, then you seem to not be aware of some things. Either you are the all seeing eye, or at best what you are doing is hit and miss. Which is closer to the truth? I know you have a special deal with SC as far as recovery, but if you were to charge them an hourly rate and you are working 80 hours a week, at 300 per hour, that would come to 24,000.00 a week. Taking the Florida settlements into account two venues paid you the full retail value of the stolen material, that would not even pay for a week of your services. You still want us to believe SC is not close to financial collapse? You are spending 95% of your time working for SC and still 95% of the product out here is stolen, according to you. That company cannot afford to pay you your hourly fee and must work out some other arrangement with you. Some things just don't ring true, I will wait to see if you can manage new product this coming year. The more likely scenario is you will go under just like CB did this year. Have a nice day.

Considering SC has never lost a first court case to a publisher, it would be impossible for it to lose "another" court case to a publisher.

The two vendors in question were APS & Associates and Donna Boris, who between them have misappropriated more than $200,000 (that we know of) in funds belonging to Slep-Tone. Legal action is pending.



First, SC doesn't sue for copyright infringement.

Second, SC has always pursued "actual music thieves," to use your term. SC's efforts were instrumental in taking down Sonny Freeman in 2008 (convicted of criminal copyright infringement) and Bill Bene (convicted earlier this year of income tax evasion arising from the unreported sale of pirated karaoke music). On the civil side, SC has targeted four major sellers of preloaded hard drives or other equipment.

Third, all of the actions with which you are familiar are not "based solely on the display of their logo from a computer source." The lawsuits are based upon the commercial use of unauthorized media-shifted duplicates of karaoke accompaniment tracks, which duplicates were not made by SC, but which duplicates carry the SC logo and are thus counterfeit. The display of the logo is incidental to and indicative of the infringement, but the infringement itself is the commercial use of the counterfeit tracks by making them available to customers (bars and other venues) and patrons.

Sadly, I have explained this to you many times, yet you continue to refuse to understand--which suggests to me that the advice you claim to have received is based upon your attorneys' incorrect understanding of what these lawsuits are about, and that the comments you have made on this subject are just disinformation. This is not a difficult concept.

So good old Donna helped to rip you off for part of the $200,000, was that the 160,000 she collected for SC concerning the So Cal lawsuits? Did she just keep the money? This is too much your side is stealing from each other. Then you want everyone to have faith in your legal process. You got to be kidding. Have a nice day.

I hope there is more money loss and more cheating lawyers!! Maybe Kurt should buy his OWN GEM series and start his own Karaoke show. He may do better.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Legal action? How about jail time?

We're exploring ALL options.

That's something even if a defendant wants to pay SC, you don't know who is really representing SC, you pay the lawyer and the money never reaches Kurt. Then you wonder why hosts and venues are so distrustful of this process of yours.