Karaoke Forums

I agree with everything you have posted, but must amend the last paragraph. It is not hosts who OWN all tracks on original discs, but hosts who USE them to run their shows. Keep in mind that media shifting is still being played out, and thus still a gray area...[/quote]

The people at the publishers I have communicated with have directly stated to me that KJ's who own the tracks on Original Manufactures Disc are insulated if they use disc or are digital. I would not have posted this if they had not stated it.[/quote]


Only part right. This covers tracks that karaoke producers actually have licensing for. However, let's say you media shifted the infamous SC Eagles disc. You can't have permission from the publisher/owners to media shift those tracks, because SC was never licensed to produce them. However, by using the mfrs. original disc in the show, the host's liability is limited to a Cease & Desist, while the media shifting PC host is still in a gray area, and may be liable for more and greater civil action at the very least.

Once again, keep in mind that most of the karaoke mfrs. have produced product without the publisher/owners' permission. THIS is why I amended your post.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Re-Posting this in hopes of a reply from Jim Harrington"

"The logo itself adds no value or quality to the track. Assuming a singer actually makes a manufacturer specific request for a song, it's not the logo the singer is looking for, but the way the track was recorded.

A host could conceivably leave all mfr. IDs in the book, remove all logos, and still receive the same customer satisfaction with the tracks being used.

Which goes back to how tough it can be to prove DAMAGES for either Trade Dress OR the media shifting of the logo without permission."



And.........

By the way I would like to give the following link, from a lawyer out in Las Vegas. A lawyer, I said.

http://soundchoicelasvegaslawsuit.com/

This ATTORNEY seems to disagree with SC/Harrington Law's point of view, and also offers some interesting insights.

Because he feels the way he does, he also posts advice to those who get sued by SC, including:

1) Questions with which to answer an SC lawsuit.

2) Documentation to request from SC in the event of a suit.

3) Joinder In Motion To Dismiss

4) Joinder In Motion To Sever

I found these and other bits of information quite intersting. I'm also stunned to find an attorney with this ethos set.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I will reply to this more fully in the coming days--feel free to remind me--but it will take me longer than the time I have available at the moment. Your analysis completely misapprehends our case theory and, for that matter, the focus and thrust of the trademark laws, and it will take some time to get it sorted properly.



That's...ironic.

1) Yup, let us know when an answer regarding DAMAGES comes to mind.

2) Ironic? An attorney that makes his living suing people without proof of wrongdoing finds my surprise at finding an ethical lawyer ironic? REALLY?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I'm moving residences this week and it is taking up my discretionary time. To be complete, my answer will require more work.


[/quote]

If you are saying that I make my living suing people without proof of wrongdoing (which is a lie) or that I am running my practice in an unethical fashion (which is equally false), then you are sorely mistaken. You would be well counseled not to make that accusation.

For the record, it is your conclusion--that the attorney in question is a paragon of ethics--that I find ironic, not your surprise.

I don't believe that Joe C. "accused you" of anything. But I noticed that you didn't fail to take the opportunity to assign it to yourself as though he did, then conveniently accuse him of lying... twice.

Then continue on and threaten him with your "well counseled not to make that accusation" statement.

YOU have assigned yourself to that accusation - don't blame Joe for something you so willingly put on your own back.

(BTW, did someone's dog eat "the evidence" when SC sued Rodney?)

And SOME attorneys wonder why the general public has such a low opinion of them...

Then you are functionally illiterate.



As you'll recall, I didn't file that suit, and I would not have filed it if it had been assigned to me. As it was, I stepped in to resolve the problem. So you're beating a dead horse.

Joe's problem with me is that he thinks I shouldn't file a lawsuit against ANYONE without some arbitrary standard of proof--which he won't state, and how to obtain he won't state--that demonstrates conclusively that they have committed piracy, and possibly killed small animals or punched their mother in the mouth.

The problem with that theory, of course, is that neither the law nor any applicable ethical standard requires that level of proof. The simple fact is that every disc SC has ever sold or distributed contains an instruction not to copy it without permission, right there on the face of it. We have identified a method that tells us conclusively whether someone has copied that disc without permission or not. We instruct our investigators to implement that method. There are SOME people that reaches, with whom we have no real problem (other than their disregard for the rule against copying), and who are given an opportunity to get out of the suit at minimal expense. But that does not mean the suit against them was unfounded, period.

WOW!!! Look at the name calling from the attorney. Funny how some of these karaoke companies pay no attention to the laws against creating karaoke discs without proper licensing but if they print "DO NOT COPY" on a disc; they expect everyone to pay attention to that. Making a copy of something that you have paid for should not cause this much of a headache. I can understand why people have started boycotting Sound Choice music at their shows. I find it no different than making photo copies of score sheets to a board game that you have purchased i.e. Yahtzee! Why should I order a bunch of score sheets from Yahtzee when I have a copy machine in my office? If I put my original Sound Choice disc into the DVD drive on my computer; I can load it into a software program that plays any song on the disc. I see no difference in ripping those same somgs to my hard drive to make it easier to play multiple songs without constantly having to put discs in and take discs out. The good news is that I don't do any karaoke shows so all of my songs are played in the privacy of my own home so I don't have to look over my shoulder every time I sing a sound choice song. And from what I've seen around my area; no one else seems to be worried about sound choice lurking around the corner either. I've only been to one show that refuses to play any sound choice material from their computer. So congratulations! You've scared one guy into submission out of hundreds of KJs in the area.

Ahh.... the ad hominem fallacy.... again. (you have no argument for the subject so you attack the opponent personally)




Not at all and I never claimed that you did file that suit so once again, your misdirected anger is nothing more than YOU putting this monkey on your own back and giving yourself an excuse to berate others. Why am I not surprised?.... (again)




So you want Joe C. to figure out for you - what the proof should be, how to obtain such proof (legally I assume) and that it should demonstrate conclusively that they have "committed PIRACY"... not necessary a "technical infringer" because heavens know you can't possibly tell the difference.

Is there anything else you'd like Joe to do for you while he's at it?... Wash your truck perhaps? File the suits for you?



Not even (or especially) your client.



So almost ten years after it began (using computers to playback Karaoke), your client decides that everyone that they had already given the copying permission to, should now have to "pay up?" It certainly wasn't a requirement at the beginning was it?

Oh, and let's not forget those using the product on a computer, with no such fee attached, and permission to do so.

You really need to stop acting like your client is some kind of Santa Claus that operates out of the goodness of their hearts or is anywhere near fair and balanced.... It's nothing more than a trolling action designed to extract settlements and/or "audit fees" from ANYONE who uses their product.

The investigative teams you hire can't tell the difference between a computer and a policeman loading karaoke discs in a player.... What other "standards of excellence" would you like to convince us of?

In order of their posts...
Comment:
Response:
DIRECT RESPONSE back:
DIRECT RESPONSE back:



I have to disagree with you here, Chip. Based on the above series of quotes (printed in the order they were given), that looks like a direct 1:1 dialogue between Joe C. and Jim Harrington. Therefore, I find Joe's statement, "an attorney that makes his living suing people without proof of wrongdoing find my surprise at finding an ethical lawyer ironic?", was aimed directly at JH, and I read it with the meaning that Joe was stating JH makes his living suing people without proof of wrongdoing. Now as for Jim Harrington's 2nd statement about being accused of being unethical, that was a bit of a stretch.

Now, if I am wrong about that, how about we let Joe C. clear it up for the record.

Works for me.

The little bit of information necessary to make that "stretch" is that filing a lawsuit without proof of wrongdoing is, generally speaking, an ethical violation.

2) If you are saying that I make my living suing people without proof of wrongdoing (which is a lie) or that I am running my practice in an unethical fashion (which is equally false), then you are sorely mistaken. You would be well counseled not to make that accusation.

For the record, it is your conclusion--that the attorney in question is a paragon of ethics--that I find ironic, not your surprise.[/quote]
******************************************************************************************
1) Good luck on the move, and the new home. I know it's a major PITA, but six months from now it'll only be a memory....

2) Until and unless an audit is performed, SC has absolutely no proof against those you sue. SC has sued people prior to any audit, ergo, SC sued without evidence of wrongdoing. SC sued incorrectly, as has proven out later. Sometimes because a PC was merely in the same room as a disc based host- though that or the actual use of a PC is not evidence. SC has sued people who, after actually being investigated, have had the suits dropped because no wrongdoing occurred- which also means that there could not have been any evidence of wrongdoing in the first place.. It is my opinion that this is unethical. I have stated this several times without any adverse responce from you. This is my main reason for my adversarial position in regard to SC's actions. You, as SC's attorney of record, persue these cases for SC. Any other conclusions and extrapolations that you draw from that are yours alone, and not stated by me. Our opinions may diverge, but let's keep it honest Jim. Don't put words in my mouth or intentions in my thoughts. As for the irony, I DID believe it was due to my surprise, as I didn't believe that you would take a potshot at the other lawyer. My error.

As for the LV attorney being a paragon of ethics- those are your words, not mine. What I did see was someone who felt that SC's current business model was as unjust as I feel it is, and has actually taken time to do something about it at no personal gain for himself. How he runs his life other than that is unknown to me. Hence, my never stating what you have attributed to me.

I would add the following: I always make a concerted effort to avoid personal insults and name-calling on forums. I may may have lapsed on occasion, but those occasions are extremely rare. I also make a point- though many pro-SC folks may not believe it- to read, absorb, and consider what EVERYONE has to say. I have have been bashed pretty badly on occasion, and VERY rarely do I respond in kind.

Jim, with all due respect, you are doing a LOT of name-calling these days. I no longer know if it's the debating tactic of distraction from major points, frustration, or simply pressure build-up from your impending move. Whatever it is, it doesn't add any information to the forum, and causes a lot of wasted posts.

I sincerely and respectfully request that you ease up a little bit. Disagree? Of course! Debate? Certainly! Maybe just a wee bit less personal?

You certainly don't owe me anything, and I have no right to ask anything of you, but I hope you will consider my request. Thank you in advance for any effort that you wish to put forth....

For the record, I don't see myself as any paragon of virtue either. I'm human, I make mistakes, but I try to do the best I can. Those here who have taken the time to speak to me on the phone and get to know me a bit ( as I have invited you to do)- including "othersiders" ( and there have been several, whose privacy I respect)- would probably attest to that.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

how many people do you know other than us cheerleaders who would go for that audit, Joe? Now I believe that refusal to be audited should classify as grounds for lawsuit no matter the reason for refusal.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Danny... Here-in lies the rub. Maybe in the beginning of all of this, many KJs received some sort of notification from SC that if they didn't agree to (and then later on, have) an audit, they would be named in a Lawsuit and sued. Some complied, and some ignored these requests. Not every KJ was made aware of this (and even today, there are still many KJs and Venues that are unaware of this). But now, the KJs are no longer being asked to be audited by SC. They're being named in a Lawsuit first, and then told what their options are after the fact.

Thats because thechances of getting a kj to agree to the audit is nil. So they might as well go forward in the suit based on the fact that they did not get permission ahead of time. They had their chance, now it's time to pay the piper.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Danny, that's a big BINGO. When they were warned (by letter) some complied but most ignored thinking nothing would happen or it was an idle threat or used the time to try to get rid of their illegal harddrives or whatever.

Remember civil and criminal law have different requirements in the regards to evidence. The discs that have "No unauthorized copying allowed" or words to that effect in and of itself would be proof if the host is running their show off a computer and has no permission to do so.

Now were some mistakes made, of course, people are human. Do you condemn any law enforcement agency if someone is acquitted of a crime? Is every LAPD officer inept because OJ got off?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Danny,

I just got a job with television company... I'll be over to inspect your television or sue you... then I'll be over to inspect your mattress or sue you, then I'll be over to inspect your refrigerator... or sue you.

These lawsuits are NO LONGER about "pirate hunting" if that's what you're thinking.. it's about "fee hunting."

I will GUARANTEE YOU that if requested an audit by ANY karaoke manufacturer (or former manufacturer,) you can bet your rear end I will either refuse or perhaps ignore it.

...Thats because the chances of getting a kj to agree to the audit is nil. So they might as well go forward in the suit based on the fact that they did not get permission ahead of time. They had their chance, now it's time to pay the piper.[/quote]

And I will repeat...

What chance did those KJs have, the ones that NEVER received notification from SC about audits? And what about those KJs and Venues that still don't know a thing about this?... And don't hand me the line, "They must have their heads in the sand," or something similar. NOT EVERY KJ participates in one of the many Karaoke Forums out there. NOT EVERY KJ talks to each other... Ditto for Venue Owners.

So, what I interpret you as originally saying is, since some KJs (the ones that SC was able to contact) refused to have an audit, they deserve to be named in a lawsuit. But now, you are also saying that even tho they may NEVER have been notified of this practice, AND BECAUSE those KJs that were aware of this practice had refused to undergo an audit, that ALL KJs should now be named in this Lawsuit, whether they are innocent or not JUST BECAUSE "the chances of getting a kj to agree to the audit is nil."

It's NOT a BINGO!
When who was warned??? The KJs and Venues that NEVER received a letter from SC 3 or 4 years ago? As I already stated, NOT EVERY KJ participates in a Karaoke Forum/Posting Board. NOT EVERY KJ (or Venue Owner) talks to each other. NOT EVERY KJ is aware of what's going on with SC... EVEN TODAY!

YOU really have to STOP stating things in the GENERAL SENSE. It labels EVERYONE.