Karaoke Forums

I guess I missed something along the way, would it have not been just as easy for Dan to show his discs to SC and case closed and dropped, no admission of guilt, and no settlement, just case closed? Funny, that is exactly what SC did here in Knoxvegas when the kj at McLeod's came forward and produced his discs then, cased closed without any settlement of admission of guilt, "strong armed tactics" or money changing hands. What was so differant in Dan's case if he does have all his discs. Hummmmm?

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

Dan didn't have a news reporter with a TV camera.

Dan has principles and IMHO, is just as well within his right to refuse and protect his privacy. SC has no rights to sell him a disc and then years later demand he produce it with no evidence of wrongdoing.
This simply reinforces to me that SC's allegations are nothing more than a fishing expedition.


And don't respond with the same story of "he mediashifted, so he's guilty."... because that's nothing more than a game of musical chairs; One second it's about owning discs and the next it's about trademark.... and after 2 YEARS, exactly SQUAT has happened.

So you are sayin the TV reporter with a camera caused a suit to be dropped. Wow, the power of the press! So why didn't Dan call the press if that is the case?

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

OK so what are you laughing at Murry? Dan's letter or Paradigm Karaoke response to something someone said about his child support.

You posts don't make sense sometimes.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Contrary to his assertion, we did actually make our disclosures on a timely basis. I have no idea why the defendant's attorney chose to assert that we hadn't.

Amazing the power of publicity, isn't it? Happens all the time. I really can't answer for Dan on that one. Perhaps he didn't think of it, perhaps the press in his area weren't interested, but I can only guess, same as you.

Really? So where are your filed copies of the requests for discovery and all relevant paperwork? Incorrect filed documents again? Getting to be a nasty habit there.
I have a couple other questions regarding the handling of this case.
Why did you choose to exclude the pro se defendants in a Scheduling Hearing, claiming as your excuse for excluding them that it was the court's order that "counsel" conduct the conference? Seriously? Good thing the judge saw past it and demanded that ALL defendants be included!
Also, why did you not respond to the Motion to Dismiss?
Hard questions, yes, and I don't really expect anything but an excuse as to why you can't or won't answer them, but I had to ask anyway.
BTW, for those that claim Dan has no discs, I am in possession of digital photos of same. Found them when going through my emails to look back on this case. No, I will not share without permission.

The documents in question are not documents that are filed with the court, but merely served upon the parties. Both Rule 26 and the local rules in Arizona specify that discovery-related material is not to be filed with the court. And yes, we served them by mail as required.



The court's order was very specific that counsel were to conduct the initial attorneys' conference. In my home district, it is typical that counsel will conduct that conference alone. We do it that way when there is at least one represented party on both sides because pro se parties rarely have enough knowledge of the federal rules to have any meaningful input into scheduling. If the pro se parties wish to be heard on scheduling matters, they can request a scheduling conference with the court. I spoke with the one defendant's attorney about that issue and we agreed that that was the best way to proceed given the specificity of the order. The judge agreed that the way we read the order was correct, but he had meant for us to include all of the parties. The pro se defendants were given the opportunity to be heard on the issue. Neither one of them chose to have any input, which was no surprise. You seem far more exercised about that issue than anyone involved in the case, including the judge.



We actually did respond to the motion to dismiss the first time it was filed. (See document no. 47.) After the motion was re-filed in substantially the same format, I do not know why the Court did not consider our response. It is normal for a court to consider responses filed "out of order"--in this case, technically before the motion was filed--rather than rule upon them by default. In any event, shortly after the motion to dismiss was re-filed, we reached a settlement agreement with that defendant. We considered the matter to be concluded; all we were waiting for were some conditions to be triggered before we filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.

Due to an email problem, I did not receive the court's notice that it was planning to dismiss the action. The first I learned of it was when the court entered a dismissal. If you consult PACER, you'll see that we immediately filed a paper noting that we did not receive the original notice from the court. However, because the settlement agreement called for a dismissal anyway, we informed the court that the result was the same and that there was no reason to reopen the issue.

Unfortunately, that defendant has breached his contract. We are well within the statute of limitations on that breach. If we want to pursue the original claim, we can do so; dismissal for failure to state a claim is necessarily without prejudice. Or we can pursue it as a breach of contract. We plan to take the necessary steps to protect our rights with regard to that defendant. At the moment, it is not a huge priority because of other cases in other jurisdictions, and we have limited resources.

I do not consider these to be hard questions to answer. Considering that you are predisposed to think ill of SC (or me) regardless of the actual facts, I can see why you'd think I would have difficulty answering.

Thank you!

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

Wrong to post personal information as I just found out. I even took away the name and still had the info removed. I thought it was okay since the email was posted as name of these posts begin with.

I see as subject matter of my info post did not have to do with the sound choice court but support for children. Very sorry.

You did miss something. Some of us aren't sheep, and if an injustice is being done, will work against the perpetrators of that injustice- whether it's the "easiest" route or not. Dan did as I would have- made an attempt to prove that there is no case. He was willing to go to court to do so, and probably in hopes of humiliating SC. SC wouldn't go to court ( In my opinion because they have no case), waited it out, and - as with Ernie- will have the case dismissed because of lack of pursuit, rather than a loss in court. In other words, they cut and ran.

On the other side, why would SC spend money to lose a court case when they can strong-arm uneducated KJ's into paying settlements without the battle? Honestly, going to court would be the worst of many bad business decisions made by SC ( which is what put them out of the karaoke production business some years ago).

Rum, ethically speaking, sometimes "easier" isn't better. Sometimes taking up the mantle and doing the right thing is....

Rolling over on your back and submitting to others may be easy for some, but others find the thought abhorrent, weak, and disgusting.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

1) "I do not consider these to be hard questions to answer."

Well after reading what I have numbered 1, 2, and 3, I would assume otherwise. They seem very diffucult for you.


2) Settlement? It certainly doesn't look that way, and Dan disagrees. However, even if there really were- " At the moment, it is not a huge priority because of other cases in other jurisdictions, and we have limited resources."- pretty much says you aren't getting anything, and you know it.

The fun part was that supposedly, back when this junk started, Dan was going to be an "example". It doesn't look like it turned out that way.

Also, the Mass Suits all seem to be falling apart, and it looks like each case will have to be filed separately if they are to be tried in court ( uh huh...).

3 years later: Certainly some coerced settlements in SC's pocket, but STILL not a court case won, or even pursued.

Take emotions out of it and just look at results- nothing but air.

Here's a thought. Do some REAL INVESTIGATION, find someone that you can PROVE is not only infringing trademark ( in other words trademarks attached to LICENSED tracks that were STOLEN [pirated], TAKE them to court, SPEND the money, and make a REAL example.

I kid, I kid.... I know that SC makes it's money off the settlements of rollovers, and doesn't want to spend the money. The thing is, if they did, they would actually gain enough credibility to maybe even do some good.

Ah, well......

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Shouldn't be hard to find someone that could easily be proven as a pirate. I'm sure most on here know at least one good candidate in there area.

As far as making an example, in addition to monetary damages I'd like to see them loose assets. (i.e. specifically their equipment).

_________________
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.

Perhaps you missed this...

Just 2 of many that have rolled over. If SC wants to make a case then let them stick to their guns. Find a pirate they know don't have the discs (should be real easy to do) take them to court and NO OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT PERIOD!!! Now I know that is what a judge would push for but if they are ever going to get a ruling they have to go to court not settle out of it by letting the pirate buy their gem series thus making them legal in SC's eyes.
PUSH for a JUDGEMENT in court. As long as SC is willing to settle out of court ALL PIRATES have nothing to fear except being caught and having to buy the gem series instead of loosing mega dollars, their equipment and more.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

that has always been what sound choice wanted to do in the first place. Remember, they want to make customers out of Pirates. their whole objective in this pursuit has always been "asset recovery" and that means money. So anyway make you money they will do it. They have never alluded to anything different, although they claim they are fighting piracy on behalf of the industry, is actually about settlements.

It appears as though their tactics are fairly simple, locate all of the karaoke hosts that are using computers and force them to either show their discs, or purchased the gems series. I for one, will not be bullied into doing anything for someone else. Others will roll over at any request from a vendor, and that's fine, that's the way they want to operate, more power to them.

If they LOSE their equipment, they can't be a Sound Choice customer. Why can't some of you folks understand that Sound Choice doesn't want to put pirates out of business? If karaoke pirates, as some suggest, are 90% of the operating KJs, then that is a huge database of sales leads, which some of you continue to feed to Sound Choice. You're just arming your competition guys...

That is exactly correct. Sound choice has never made any bones about their intentions of collecting money and turning pirates into customers. This is no secret and it is no revelation.

They are simply using the technicality of trademark infringement as a method to drag people into court and shake them down in my opinion, because it won't work if they just call them up politely and ask them on the phone.